I.3.1  我发现了一些新的、有趣的信息

I.3.1  I Have Found Some New and In­ter­est­ing In­form­a­tion

当你对读者说： “这里有一些关于十四世纪西藏织造的知识，你可能不知道，但或许会感兴趣。”时，你就迈出了真正研究的第一步。当然，这假设他们有兴趣了解。但即便他们没有兴趣，你也必须把自己塑造成一个发现了他们感兴趣的内容的人，并让他们觉得他们渴望了解。将来，当你写作时，人们会期望你找到（或创建一个）一个研究社群，这个社群不仅对你的主题感兴趣（或者可以被说服感兴趣），而且还会提出一些你可以解答的问题。但即便你现在还没有这样的社群，你也必须像已经拥有这样的社群一样写作。你必须展现出你对分享新知识的兴趣，甚至热情，因为你对作品的兴趣程度大致可以预测读者对它的兴趣。

You take the first step to­ward au­then­tic re­search when you say to your audi­ence, Here are some facts about four­teenth-cen­tury Tibetan weav­ing that you do not know and may find in­ter­est­ing. This of­fer as­sumes, of course, that they want to know. But even if not, you must still cast your­self in the role of someone who has found some­thing they will find in­ter­est­ing and cast them as people who want to know. Down the road, when you write, you will be ex­pec­ted to find (or cre­ate) a re­search com­munity that not only shares an in­terest in your topic (or can be con­vinced to) but also has ques­tions about it that you can an­swer. But even if you don’t have that com­munity right now, you must write as if you do. You must present your­self as in­ter­ested in, even en­thu­si­astic about, want­ing to share some­thing new, be­cause the in­terest you show in your work roughly pre­dicts the in­terest your audi­ence will take in it.

I.3.2  我找到了一个实际问题的解决方案

I.3.2  I Have Found a Solu­tion to a Prac­tical Prob­lem

当你能够向受众传达的信息不仅仅是“这里有一些你们可能会感兴趣的事实”，而是“这些事实将帮助你们解决自己关心的问题”时，你就朝着更有意义的研究迈出了一步。人们每天都在商业、政府以及许多其他工作和行业中进行这类研究。他们面对着各种实际问题，而这些问题的解决方案首先需要通过研究来理解问题，然后再去解决——这些问题涵盖了从失眠到利润下滑，从交通拥堵到恐怖主义等方方面面。

You take a step to­ward more sig­ni­fic­ant re­search when you can say to an audi­ence not just Here are some facts that should in­terest you, but also These facts will help you do some­thing to solve a prob­lem you care about. People do this kind of re­search every day in busi­ness, gov­ern­ment, and many jobs and pro­fes­sions. They con­front prac­tical prob­lems whose solu­tions re­quire re­search first to un­der­stand the prob­lem, then to solve it—prob­lems ran­ging from in­som­nia to fall­ing profits to traffic to ter­ror­ism.

为了帮助新晋研究人员了解这一角色，教师有时会采用基于问题的学习方法，探讨“现实世界”的情境。例如：一位环境科学教授可能会布置你为州环境保护局局长撰写一份关于如何清理当地湖泊的报告。在这种情况下，你扮演的是一位专业人士的角色，为需要帮助的人提供切实可行的建议。为了使你的报告具有说服力，你必须使用正确的术语，引用正确的资料来源，并找到并呈现正确的证据，所有这些都必须以正确的格式呈现。但最重要的是，你必须围绕一个明确的目标来设计你的报告，这个目标定义了你的角色：为决策者提供解决问题的建议。

To help new re­search­ers learn that role, teach­ers some­times use prob­lem-based learn­ing ad­dress­ing “real-world” scen­arios. For ex­ample, an en­vir­on­mental sci­ence pro­fessor might as­sign you to write a re­port for the dir­ector of the state En­vir­on­mental Pro­tec­tion Agency on how to clean up a local lake. In this scen­ario, you play the role of a pro­fes­sional giv­ing prac­tical ad­vice to someone who needs it. To make your re­port cred­ible, you must use the right ter­min­o­logy, cite the right sources, and find and present the right evid­ence, all in the right format. But most im­port­ant, you have to design your re­port around a spe­cific in­ten­tion that defines your role: to ad­vise a de­cision maker on what to do to solve a prob­lem.

I.3.3  我找到了一个重要问题的答案

I.3.3  I Have Found an An­swer to an Im­port­ant Ques­tion

尽管学术研究人员有时也会进行这类实用研究，但他们更常见的角色是帮助各自的研究群体更好地理解某些事物。有些人可能会利用他们的发现来解决实际问题——例如，关于素数分布的发现帮助密码学家设计了一种无法破解的密码。但这类研究本身的目的并非解决更好地保护秘密的实际问题，而是更好地理解素数的概念性问题（我们将在第二章更详细地讨论这两种问题）。一些研究人员将这类研究称为“纯粹研究”，以区别于“应用研究”。

Al­though aca­demic re­search­ers some­times do that sort of prac­tical re­search, their more com­mon role is simply to help their re­search com­munit­ies bet­ter un­der­stand some­thing. Oth­ers might use their find­ings to solve prac­tical prob­lems—a dis­cov­ery about the dis­tri­bu­tion of prime num­bers, for ex­ample, helped crypto­lo­gists design an un­break­able code. But that re­search it­self aimed at solv­ing not the prac­tical prob­lem of bet­ter pro­tect­ing secrets but the con­cep­tual prob­lem of bet­ter un­der­stand­ing prime num­bers (we dis­cuss these two kinds of prob­lems in more de­tail in chapter 2). Some re­search­ers call this kind of re­search “pure” as op­posed to “ap­plied.”

教师有时会虚构一些涉及概念性问题的“真实世界”情境：比如，一位政治学教授会让你扮演参议员的实习生，研究外州大学生的投票习惯。但更常见的情况是，他们希望你把自己想象成你正在学习的角色：一位研究者，面向一群其他研究者——你的主要受众——讲解他们想要深入了解的问题。例如，你对十四世纪西藏织造的研究或许能帮助地毯设计师卖出更多地毯，但其主要目的是帮助学者更好地理解西藏艺术，例如：十四世纪西藏地毯如何影响了近代中国的艺术？

Teach­ers oc­ca­sion­ally in­vent “real-world” scen­arios in­volving con­cep­tual prob­lems: a polit­ical sci­ence pro­fessor asks you to play the role of a sen­ator’s in­tern re­search­ing the vot­ing habits of out-of-state col­lege stu­dents. But more typ­ic­ally they ex­pect you to ima­gine your­self as what you are learn­ing to be: a re­searcher ad­dress­ing a com­munity of other re­search­ers—your primary audi­ence—in­ter­ested in is­sues that they want to un­der­stand bet­ter. Your re­search on four­teenth-cen­tury Tibetan weav­ing, for ex­ample, could pos­sibly help rug de­sign­ers sell more rugs, but its main aim is to help schol­ars bet­ter un­der­stand some­thing about Tibetan art, such as How did four­teenth-cen­tury Tibetan rugs in­flu­ence the art of mod­ern China?

I.4.1  娱乐我

I.4.1  En­ter­tain Me

想象一下，第一个邀请你演讲的团体是当地的华夫饼爱好者协会。他们的成员虽然不是专家，但对华夫饼却了如指掌。他们阅读有关华夫饼的书籍，经常光顾华夫饼专卖店，还收集各种华夫饼主题的新奇玩意儿。你决定分享一些新发现，以及一些食谱，这些都来自你曾祖母在20世纪30年代祖父母从比利时移民时写给他们的一封信。

Ima­gine that the first group that in­vited you to speak is the local chapter of the Waffle Lov­ers So­ci­ety. Its mem­bers are not ex­perts, but they know a lot about waffles. They read about waffles, fre­quent res­taur­ants that spe­cial­ize in waffles, and col­lect a range of waffle-themed nov­el­ties. You de­cide to share some new facts, along with some re­cipes, that you have found in a let­ter from your great-grand­mother writ­ten to your grand­par­ents when they emig­rated from Bel­gium in the 1930s.

在准备演讲时，你认为这不过是一场轻松愉快的华夫饼故事分享会。你履行了你的承诺，分享任何你认为可能引起大家兴趣的内容，包括你的直觉和推测。你可能会分享一张你最近发现的信件截图，但你不会引用任何学术文献来佐证你的说法。你的听众会认真聆听，提出问题，或许还会分享他们自己的轶事。你并不指望他们质疑信件的真实性，或者质疑信件或食谱与华夫饼的社会历史，更遑论北欧饮食文化之间的关联。你的任务是奉献一场引人入胜的演讲；他们的任务是友好地参与其中。

In plan­ning your talk, you judge that what’s at stake is just a di­vert­ing hour of waffle lore. You meet your side of the bar­gain when you share whatever you think might in­terest the group, in­clud­ing hunches and spec­u­la­tion. You might share a screen­shot of your re­cently dis­covered let­ter, but you won’t cite schol­arly sources to sub­stan­ti­ate any claims. Your audi­ence mem­bers will play their role by listen­ing with in­terest, ask­ing ques­tions, maybe shar­ing their own an­ec­dotes. You don’t ex­pect them to chal­lenge the au­then­ti­city of the let­ter or ques­tion how the let­ter or re­cipes are rel­ev­ant to the so­cial his­tory of waffles, much less of north­ern European food­ways. Your job is to give an en­ga­ging talk; theirs is to be ami­ably en­gaged.

一些初级研究者想象他们的受众就像“华夫饼爱好者协会”一样，已经对他们的研究主题着迷，并渴望了解任何相关新内容。虽然这种想法有时确实有效。对于拥有合适受众的专家来说，这种方法很少适用于正在学习如何进行和分享真实研究的学生。你的老师不仅希望你分享你的发现，还希望你展示你能如何运用这些发现，或者为什么它们具有重要意义。

Some be­gin­ning re­search­ers ima­gine their audi­ence is like this Waffle Lov­ers So­ci­ety, already fas­cin­ated by their topic and eager to hear any­thing new about it. While that per­spect­ive some­times works for ex­perts with the right audi­ence, it rarely works for stu­dents learn­ing to do and share au­then­tic re­search. Your teach­ers will ex­pect you not just to share what you find but also to show what you can do with it or why it is sig­ni­fic­ant.

I.4.2  请帮我解决我的实际问题

I.4.2  Help Me Solve My Prac­tical Prob­lem

想象一下，你的下一场会议是与一家电影公司进行的。他们计划拍摄一部以20世纪30年代比利时乡村为背景的历史重现电影，并希望你能帮忙确保历史细节的准确性，其中包括一个农舍厨房的场景。他们想知道厨房的物品摆放情况、烹饪用具的样式等等。他们并不在意你提供的信息是否新颖，只关心信息的准确性，以便他们能够营造出真实可信的场景。你向他们展示了你的信件和食谱，并描述了那个年代华夫饼的制作方法。要胜任这项工作，你必须帮助他们解决一个实际问题，而你的解决方案并非基于你能找到的所有信息（无论多么新颖），而是基于那些与真实性问题相关的、且来源可靠的特定事实。你的听众会认真聆听并进行批判性思考，因为他们希望确保细节的准确性。

Ima­gine that your next meet­ing is with a film com­pany. They plan to make a his­tor­ical reen­act­ment film set in rural Bel­gium in the 1930s and want your help to get the his­tor­ical de­tails right, in­clud­ing a scene in a farm­house kit­chen. They want to know how the kit­chen was stocked, what the cook­ing im­ple­ments looked like, and so on. They don’t care whether your facts are new, only whether they are right, so that they can make the scene au­then­tic. You show them your let­ter and re­cipes and de­scribe how waffles were pre­pared in that era. To suc­ceed in this role, you must help them solve a prac­tical prob­lem whose solu­tion you base not on all the in­form­a­tion you can find, no mat­ter how new, but just on those par­tic­u­lar facts that are rel­ev­ant to the prob­lem of au­then­ti­city and whose sources you can show are re­li­able. Your audi­ence will listen in­tently and crit­ic­ally be­cause they want to get the de­tails right.

如果你的老师布置了一个“现实世界”的作业，你很可能会遇到这样的任务：给一位需要处理湖泊污染问题的环保署官员写信。学术研究人员有时也会研究这类实际问题，但正如我们所说，他们通常研究的是概念性问题。所以，只有当你的老师布置了实际问题时，你才应该提出并解决它；否则，在开始之前，请先询问你的计划是否合适。

This is the kind of task you are likely to face if your teacher in­vents a “real-world” as­sign­ment: write to an EPA of­fi­cial who needs to do some­thing about a pol­luted lake. Aca­demic re­search­ers some­times ad­dress prac­tical prob­lems like these, but as we said, they typ­ic­ally ad­dress con­cep­tual ones. So pose and ad­dress a prac­tical prob­lem only if your teacher cre­ates one; oth­er­wise, ask whether your plan is ap­pro­pri­ate be­fore you be­gin.

I.4.3  帮我更好地理解某些内容

I.4.3  Help Me Un­der­stand Some­thing Bet­ter

现在想象一下，你的听众是库克大学烹饪文化系的教职员工。他们很可能与你有着共同的兴趣。他们研究食物历史和传统的方方面面，并参与关于其社会、文化和政治意义的国际讨论。他们通过学术期刊和书籍，与其他食物研究学者竞争，力求对他们所关注的主题进行更深入的阐述。通过这种方式，他们也携手合作，共同推动各自研究领域的发展。

Now ima­gine that your audi­ence is the fac­ulty of Cook Uni­ver­sity’s De­part­ment of Culin­ary Cul­tures. This is the audi­ence most likely to share your in­terest. They study all as­pects of food his­tory and tra­di­tions and par­ti­cip­ate in in­ter­na­tional dis­cus­sions about their so­cial, cul­tural, and polit­ical sig­ni­fic­ance. Through aca­demic journ­als and books, they com­pete with other food stud­ies schol­ars to pro­duce richer ac­counts of the top­ics they care about. In this way, they also co­oper­ate to ad­vance their field of study.

这些学者邀请您来谈谈您的专长：二十世纪上半叶的食物社会史。他们并非仅仅希望您用一些新奇的史料来逗他们开心（当然，如果您能做到，他们也会很高兴），或者帮他们做点什么（比如获得电影咨询的工作）。他们希望您运用所掌握的最新史料和信息，帮助他们更好地理解华夫饼的社会史，或者更广泛地说，理解二战前欧洲各地饮食文化的社会史。

These schol­ars have in­vited you to talk about your spe­cialty: the so­cial his­tory of food in the first half of the twen­ti­eth cen­tury. They don’t want you just to amuse them with new facts (though they will be happy if you do) or to help them do some­thing (like get a con­sult­ing gig on a film). They want you to use whatever new facts and in­form­a­tion you have to help them bet­ter un­der­stand the so­cial his­tory of waffles or, more gen­er­ally, of re­gional European food­ways prior to World War II.

因为这些学者致力于尽可能深入、准确地理解过去，所以他们希望你思考严谨，并从各个角度审视问题。如果你的论证不够严谨或不够正确，他们会质疑你的推理，并就事实提出挑战。他们会很高兴看到你曾祖母最近发现的信件和食谱，但他们会希望你验证其真实性，并证实你对其意义的任何论断。如果你能让他们意识到，他们对华夫饼的社会历史了解得并不像他们想象的那样透彻，并且出乎意料地发现还有更多值得探索的内容，他们会格外乐于接受。如果你做不到这一点，他们的回应不会是“我不同意”（我们最终都会学会接受这一点），而是会给出更令人沮丧的回答：“我不在乎。”

Be­cause these schol­ars are com­mit­ted to un­der­stand­ing the past as deeply and ac­cur­ately as pos­sible, they ex­pect you to be care­ful in your think­ing and to ex­am­ine is­sues from all sides. They will ques­tion your reas­on­ing and chal­lenge you on the facts if they think you are any­thing less than rig­or­ous or cor­rect. They will be happy to see the re­cently dis­covered let­ter and re­cipes from your great-grand­mother, but they will ex­pect you to verify their au­then­ti­city and to sub­stan­ti­ate any claims you make about their sig­ni­fic­ance. They will be es­pe­cially re­cept­ive if you can con­vince them that they do not un­der­stand the so­cial his­tory of waffles as fully as they thought they did and, un­ex­pec­tedly, that there is some­thing more to know. If you can’t do that, they’ll re­spond not with I don’t agree—we all learn to live with that—but with a re­sponse far more dev­ast­at­ing: I don’t care.

你开始演讲：

You be­gin your present­a­tion:

我们知道华夫饼在欧洲美食中有着悠久的历史，尤其与比利时联系紧密。我们也知道，现代华夫饼可以是圆形的，也可以是长方形的，这取决于制作华夫饼所用的铸铁模具。然而，我们之前并未充分意识到的是，华夫饼的形状曾经具有社会乃至政治意义。在比利时农村地区，人们一直抵制长方形华夫饼，直到20世纪，这被视为民族认同的象征。长方形华夫饼被认为是荷兰的象征，而圆形华夫饼则被认为是地道的弗拉芒风味。最近，一位远房表亲与我分享了一封信，信中揭示了……

We know that the waffle has a long his­tory in European cuisine, even as it is as­so­ci­ated with Bel­gium. We know that the mod­ern waffle can be either round or rect­an­gu­lar, de­pend­ing on the cast-iron molds pro­duced for their pre­par­a­tion. What we did not fully real­ize, how­ever, was that a waffle’s shape once had so­cial and even polit­ical sig­ni­fic­ance. Res­ist­ance to rect­an­gu­lar waffles per­sisted well into the twen­ti­eth cen­tury through­out rural Bel­gium as a marker of na­tional iden­tity, with the rect­an­gu­lar waffle be­ing as­so­ci­ated with the Dutch and the round waffle deemed au­then­tic­ally Flem­ish. A re­cently dis­covered let­ter shared with me by a dis­tant cousin re­veals . . .

当你与学者群体分享研究成果时，就会参与到这类对话中。你和他们都希望更深入地理解某些事物，并非仅仅为了娱乐或盈利，而是因为发现和分享新知识本身就充满意义。

This is the kind of con­ver­sa­tion you join when you share re­search with a com­munity of schol­ars. You and they want to un­der­stand some­thing bet­ter, not strictly for en­ter­tain­ment or profit but be­cause dis­cov­er­ing and shar­ing new know­ledge is in­ter­est­ing on its own terms.

学术界的听众几乎总是会扮演这第三种角色。只有当你把他们当作他们自认为的那种人来对待时，他们才会认为你履行了社会契约：他们是追求更广知识、更深刻理解的学者。诚然，化学或哲学系的教授们对华夫饼的社会历史并不关心。但你也同样不太关心他们的问题。你关心的是你所在的学者或研究人员群体，他们的兴趣和期望，以及如何基于你能找到的最佳证据来增进他们的理解。

Aca­demic audi­ences will al­most al­ways ad­opt this third role. They will think you’ve ful­filled your side of the so­cial con­tract only when you treat them as who they think they are: schol­ars in­ter­ested in greater know­ledge and bet­ter un­der­stand­ing. To be sure, the fac­ulty over in chem­istry or philo­sophy care little about the so­cial his­tory of waffles. But then you don’t much care about their is­sues, either. You are con­cerned with your par­tic­u­lar com­munity of schol­ars or re­search­ers, with their in­terests and ex­pect­a­tions, with im­prov­ing their un­der­stand­ing, based on the best evid­ence you can find.

1.1.1  在写作课程中寻找主题

1.1.1  Find­ing a Topic in a Writ­ing Course

许多研究项目都始于写作课程，学习学术研究是这些课程的目标之一。如果你也处于这种情况，并且可以相对自由地选择研究主题，那么不妨利用这个机会探索你的兴趣，无论它多么平凡或边缘。不要局限于你认为应该研究的内容，或者老师会认可的研究方向。想想你最近读过或听过什么，或者和朋友家人讨论过什么。想想你遇到的分歧点或让你感到惊讶的地方，或许是某些事情促使你上网搜索以满足你的好奇心。你可以列出尽可能多的兴趣点（十个或更多），以便进一步探索，而不必急于做出决定。此时，你可能只是在完善“我想了解更多关于……”的想法（例如，二维码技术），而没有具体的方向。如果仍然没有想到任何有前景的研究主题，请参考本章末尾的“快速提示”。

Many re­search pro­jects be­gin in a writ­ing course where learn­ing to do aca­demic re­search is a goal. If that’s your situ­ation and you can choose top­ics more or less freely, use this op­por­tun­ity to ex­plore an in­terest, how­ever mundane or mar­ginal. Don’t limit your­self to what you think you should re­search or what a teacher will ap­prove. Think about what you have read or listened to re­cently or dis­cussed with friends or fam­ily. Think about points of dis­agree­ment or ele­ments of sur­prise, per­haps some­thing that has promp­ted you to search on­line to sat­isfy your curi­os­ity. You might list as many in­terests as you can (ten or more) to ex­plore fur­ther without feel­ing any need to de­cide just yet. At this point, you may be just com­plet­ing the thought I’d like to learn more about . . . (e.g., the tech­no­logy of QR codes) without a spe­cific fo­cus. If no prom­ising top­ics come to mind, con­sult the Quick Tip at the end of this chapter.

在研究初期，看看是否有相关信息，或者是否有人与你一样对此感兴趣并进行过研究，会让你感到安心。虽然用谷歌搜索某个主题很容易，但面对海量的搜索结果，你可能会感到不知所措。当然，你也会发现一些有价值的网站，它们反映了相关组织或兴趣团体对某个主题的关注，并能激发你进一步的思考。对于许多主题，你可以在热门网站维基百科上找到有用的信息。但是，不要在没有核实维基百科文章所依赖的参考文献的情况下，就将维基百科作为可靠的研究证据来源（参见3.4）。

At this early stage, it can be re­as­sur­ing to see if there is in­form­a­tion out there or if oth­ers share your in­terest enough to have re­searched it. It is easy to google a topic, al­though it can be over­whelm­ing to wade through the volume of hits you’ll likely re­ceive. There are bound to be prom­ising web­sites that re­flect at­ten­tion to a topic by or­gan­iz­a­tions or in­terest groups and that spur fur­ther think­ing on your part. For many top­ics, you will find use­ful in­form­a­tion on the pop­u­lar web­site Wiki­pe­dia. How­ever, don’t turn to Wiki­pe­dia as a re­li­able source of evid­ence to use in your re­search without vet­ting ref­er­ence ma­ter­i­als on which Wiki­pe­dia art­icles rely (see 3.4).

1.1.2  在特定领域寻找研究课题

1.1.2  Find­ing a Topic for a Re­search Pro­ject in a Par­tic­u­lar Field

随着你对某个特定领域或学科了解的深入，你的研究重点也会变得更加具体。为了找到研究主题，你仍然可以参考像《不列颠百科全书》这样的通用学术资源，但你也可以通过一些专业资源来查找主题，例如《国际政治学百科全书》或《国际妇女研究》。你还通过谷歌学术（Google Scholar）来探索相关主题，谷歌学术是一个专注于学术期刊和书籍的搜索引擎。

As you learn more about a par­tic­u­lar field or sub­ject, the fo­cus of your re­search will be­come more spe­cific. To find a topic, you might still con­sult gen­eral aca­demic re­sources like En­cyc­lo­pae­dia Brit­an­nica, but you can also find top­ics through spe­cial­ized re­sources such as the In­ter­na­tional En­cyc­lo­pe­dia of Polit­ical Sci­ence or Wo­men’s Stud­ies In­ter­na­tional. You can also ex­plore top­ics through Google Scholar, a search en­gine that fo­cuses on schol­arly journ­als and books.

如果您在研究领域已达到入门水平以上，那么您很可能已经阅读过一些相关文献（参见3.1.2 ），并且对该领域的一些争论有所了解（这些争论可能不为外人所知）。如果是这样，研究项目就是您参与这些争论的绝佳机会。为了更好地理解这些争论，您可以浏览您所在领域期刊的最新期刊，或者阅读专业会议的征稿启事。您还可以联系图书馆员，特别是那些专攻您所在领域的图书馆员，或者查阅您所在机构的特藏和档案馆藏。

If you have ad­vanced bey­ond an in­tro­duct­ory level in your field of study, you most likely have read some of its lit­er­at­ure (see 3.1.2) and have some aware­ness of its areas of de­bate (which may not be vis­ible to out­siders). If so, a re­search pro­ject is an op­por­tun­ity to enter into those de­bates your­self. To bet­ter un­der­stand them, you can skim the latest is­sues of journ­als in your field or read calls for pa­pers for pro­fes­sional con­fer­ences. You might also reach out to lib­rar­i­ans, es­pe­cially those who spe­cial­ize in your field, or ex­am­ine your in­sti­tu­tion’s spe­cial col­lec­tions and archives.

1.1.3  聚焦主题

1.1.3  Bring­ing a Topic into Fo­cus

当研究课题无法用寥寥数语概括时，就进入了研究项目的关键阶段。例如，“托尔斯泰作品中的自由意志”、“商业航空史”和“二战时期的人物‘铆钉女工罗西’”这些主题都过于简短和宽泛，需要更深入的细节来阐述。

You reach a cru­cial stage in a re­search pro­ject when a topic of in­terest can­not be stated in a few words. For ex­ample, the top­ics “free will in Tol­stoy,” “the his­tory of com­mer­cial avi­ation,” and “the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter” are too short and too dif­fuse. They re­quire an­other level of de­tail:

托尔斯泰在《战争与和平》中对三场战役的描述体现了自由意志与必然性的冲突。

在商业航空发展的早期阶段，军方对DC-3的研发做出了贡献。

二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”如何演变为女权主义偶像

The con­flict of free will and in­ev­it­ab­il­ity in Tol­stoy’s de­scrip­tion of three battles in War and Peace

The con­tri­bu­tion of the mil­it­ary in de­vel­op­ing the DC-3 in the early years of com­mer­cial avi­ation

The evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon

我们通过添加一些特殊的词语和短语来聚焦这些主题：冲突、描述、贡献、发展和演变。这些名词源自表示动作的动词：冲突、描述、贡献、发展和演变。如果缺少“动作”词汇，你的主题就显得静态。

We fo­cused those top­ics by adding words and phrases of a spe­cial kind: con­flict, de­scrip­tion, con­tri­bu­tion, de­vel­op­ing, and evol­u­tion. Those nouns are de­rived from verbs ex­press­ing ac­tions: to con­flict, to de­scribe, to con­trib­ute, to de­velop, and to evolve. Lack­ing “ac­tion” words, your topic is static.

注意当我们用完整句子重述静态主题时会发生什么。主题（1）、（2）和（3）几乎没有任何变化：

Note what hap­pens when we re­state static top­ics as full sen­tences. Top­ics (1), (2), and (3) change barely at all:

（1）托尔斯泰_{作品→ 托尔斯泰}的小说中存在

（2）商业航空史_主题→ 商业航空有着_悠久

（3）二战时期人物“铆钉女工罗西”_话题 →二战时期_铆钉有

(1) Free will in Tol­stoy_topic → There is free will in Tol­stoy’s nov­els._claim

(2) The his­tory of com­mer­cial avi­ation_topic → Com­mer­cial avi­ation has a his­tory._claim

(3) The World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter_topic → There is a World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter._claim

事实上，(1)、(2) 和 (3) 都不是有用的话题，因为它们无法引出任何结论。有些人甚至会说，这些根本算不上话题。但是，(4)、(5) 和 (6) 却是有用的话题，因为当它们被修改成完整的句子时，就变成了听众可能会感兴趣的论点。

In fact, (1), (2), and (3) are not use­ful top­ics be­cause they do not lead any­where. Some might say these are not top­ics at all. But (4), (5), and (6) are use­ful top­ics be­cause when they are re­vised into full sen­tences, they be­come claims that an audi­ence might find in­ter­est­ing.

（4）托尔斯泰在《战争与的描述中自由意志与必然性的冲突_{→ 在}《战争与和平》中，托尔斯泰描述了三场自由意志与必然性发生冲突的战役_。

（5）军方在早期商用航空发展中对DC-3的贡献 → 在_早期 商用航空发展中，军方对DC - 3的研发做出了_贡献

（6）二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”形象演变为女权主义偶像_{的话题 →}自二战以来演变为女权主义_偶像。

(4) The con­flict of free will and in­ev­it­ab­il­ity in Tol­stoy’s de­scrip­tion of three battles in War and Peace_topic → In War and Peace, Tol­stoy de­scribes three battles in which free will and in­ev­it­ab­il­ity con­flict._claim

(5) The con­tri­bu­tion of the mil­it­ary in de­vel­op­ing the DC-3 in the early years of com­mer­cial avi­ation_topic → In the early years of com­mer­cial avi­ation, the mil­it­ary con­trib­uted to the way the DC-3 de­veloped._claim

(6) The evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon_topic → Since World War II, the fig­ure of Rosie the Riv­eter has evolved as a fem­in­ist icon._claim

这些论点乍看之下可能略显单薄，但随着项目的推进，你会使它们更加充实。关键就在于此：将主题发展成论点，有助于你构思项目，并最终构建出完整的论证。

Such claims may at first seem thin, but you will make them richer as you work through your pro­ject. And that’s the point: de­vel­op­ing top­ics into claims will help you de­vise your pro­ject and ima­gine the ar­gu­ment you will even­tu­ally make.

1.2.1  询问有关你所选主题的历史

1.2.1  Ask About the His­tory of Your Topic

• ▪ 它如何融入更大的发展背景？陶器有多
• ▪  How does it fit into a lar­ger de­vel­op­mental con­text? How old is pot­tery? Who in­ven­ted pot­tery? Does every civil­iz­a­tion have some form of pot­tery? What came be­fore pot­tery? Which is older, pot­tery or ag­ri­cul­ture?
• 陶器本身的历史是怎样的？随着时间的推移，陶器这一主题发生了哪些变化？为什么会发生这些变化？从方法、材料和用途方面来看，陶器的发展经历了哪些阶段？陶器生产方式又是如何以及为什么会随着时间推移而发生变化的？陶器领域目前有哪些新的发展？
• ▪  What is its own in­ternal his­tory? How and why has the topic it­self changed over time? What are the stages of pot­tery’s de­vel­op­ment over time in terms of meth­ods, ma­ter­i­als, and pur­poses? How and why has pot­tery pro­duc­tion changed over time? Are there new de­vel­op­ments in pot­tery?

1.2.2  询问其结构和组成

1.2.2  Ask About Its Struc­ture and Com­pos­i­tion

• ▪ 你的研究主题如何融入更大的结构或功能，成为更大系统的一部分？它与……有何 陶器和陶瓷有哪些用途？陶器的用途范围是什么？陶器在经济贸易和文化交流中扮演了什么角色？
• ▪  How does your topic fit into the con­text of a lar­ger struc­ture or func­tion as part of a lar­ger sys­tem? What is the dif­fer­ence between pot­tery and ceram­ics? What is the range of uses of pot­tery? What role did pot­tery play in eco­nomic trade and cul­tural ex­change?

• ▪ 陶器的各个部分如何组合成一个系统？制作陶器的方法和材料是什么
• ▪  How do its parts fit to­gether as a sys­tem? What are the meth­ods and ma­ter­i­als for pro­du­cing pot­tery? What are its steps and stages? What does one need to know to make pot­tery?

1.2.3  询问你的主题是如何分类的

1.2.3  Ask How Your Topic Is Cat­egor­ized

• ▪ 你的主题可以如何分类？陶器的基本类型有哪些？用于休闲或艺术目的的陶器制作与工业化生产有何不同？陶器是艺术还是工艺？
• ▪  How can your topic be or­gan­ized into kinds? What are the ba­sic types of pot­tery? How does mak­ing pot­tery for re­cre­ational or artistic pur­poses dif­fer from its in­dus­trial man­u­fac­ture? Is pot­tery an art or a craft?
• ▪ 你的研究主题与其他类似主题有何异同？陶器与编织、冶金和玻璃制造之间有何联系？为什么陶器的质量和价格各不相同？陶器制品和塑料制品哪个更好？
• ▪  How does your topic com­pare to and con­trast with oth­ers like it? What are pot­tery’s re­la­tion­ships to bas­ketry, me­tal­lurgy, and glass­mak­ing? Why does pot­tery dif­fer in qual­ity and price? Which is bet­ter, things made from pot­tery or from plastic?

1.2.4  提出“如果……会怎样？”及其他推测性问题

1.2.4  Ask What If? and Other Spec­u­lat­ive Ques­tions

• ▪ 如果你的研究主题从未存在过、消失过，或者被置于新的语境中，情况会有什么不同？如果没有陶器，人类文化会是什么样子？我们能没有陶器吗？陶器在未来会扮演什么角色？
• ▪  How would things be dif­fer­ent if your topic never ex­is­ted, dis­ap­peared, or were put into a new con­text? What would hu­man cul­ture be like without pot­tery? Can we do without pot­tery? What role will pot­tery play in the fu­ture?

1.2.5  提出信息来源建议的问题

1.2.5  Ask Ques­tions Sug­ges­ted by Your Sources

在你对主题进行一些阅读之前，你无法做到这一点。提出基于共识的问题：

You won’t be able to do this un­til you’ve done some read­ing on your topic. Ask ques­tions that build on agree­ment:

• ▪ 如果某个资料来源提出的论点你认为很有说服力，可以提出一些问题来拓展其影响范围。例如，吴等人提出，“东亚陶瓷的早期年代测定驳斥了陶器生产的开始与农业转型相关的观点”（《科学》，2012年6月）。如果不是农业，那么陶器的发明又是在怎样的社会背景下进行的呢？
• ▪  If a source makes a claim you think is per­suas­ive, ask ques­tions that might ex­tend its reach. Wu et al. pro­pose that “the early dat­ing of East Asian ceram­ics re­futes the idea that the be­gin­ning of pot­tery pro­duc­tion was as­so­ci­ated with the trans­ition to ag­ri­cul­ture” (Sci­ence, June 2012). What was the so­ci­etal con­text for its in­ven­tion, if not ag­ri­cul­ture?
• ▪ 提出一些问题，这些问题或许能用新的证据来支持同样的论点。我们是否在世界其他地区发现了农业出现之前使用陶器的证据？
• ▪  Ask ques­tions that might sup­port the same claim with new evid­ence. Do we find evid­ence for pre-ag­ri­cul­tural use of pot­tery in other parts of the world?
• ▪ 提出与资料来源就类似主题提出的问题类似的问题。史密斯从保护商业秘密的角度分析了玻璃制造。如果对陶器进行类似的分析，又会揭示出什么呢？
• ▪  Ask ques­tions ana­log­ous to those that sources have asked about sim­ilar top­ics. Smith ana­lyzes glass­mak­ing from the per­spect­ive of pro­tect­ing trade secrets. What would a sim­ilar ana­lysis of pot­tery re­veal?

现在提出一些反映不同意见的问题：

Now ask ques­tions that re­flect dis­agree­ment:

• ▪ 询问新的证据，或者以新的方式看待的旧证据，是否可能与某个来源的说法相矛盾。马丁内斯声称陶器在美国东南部和西南部地区独立发展。但是，考古记录中是否存在这些地区之间存在文化交流的证据呢？
• ▪  Ask if new evid­ence, or old evid­ence con­sidered in a new way, might con­tra­dict a source’s claim. Mar­tinez claims that pot­tery de­veloped in­de­pend­ently in the South­east and South­w­est re­gions of the United States. But is there evid­ence in the ar­chae­olo­gical re­cord of cul­tural ex­change between these re­gions?
• ▪ 注意两份资料的分歧之处。鉴于阮的论点是……，马丁内斯怎么能声称美国东南部和西南部地区的陶器是独立发展的呢？
• ▪  No­tice where two sources dis­agree. How can Mar­tinez claim that pot­tery de­veloped in­de­pend­ently in the South­east and South­w­est re­gions of the United States given Nguyen’s ar­gu­ment that . . . ?

（我们将在4.4 节和第 9 章中更详细地讨论如何利用与资料来源的分歧。）

(We dis­cuss in more de­tail how to use dis­agree­ments with sources in 4.4 and chapter 9.)

如果你是一位经验丰富的研究人员，可以寻找其他研究人员提出但尚未解答的问题。许多期刊文章的结尾都会有一两段关于未决问题、未来研究方向等的论述（例如，参见2.4.2节）。你或许无法完成他们建议的所有研究，但可以尝试从中选取一部分。你也可以在网上或社交媒体上搜索与你研究主题相关的讨论，然后“潜水”，阅读其中的交流内容，了解讨论的焦点。记录下那些激发你兴趣的问题。如果你觉得自己准备好了，不妨也贡献一些自己的研究成果。

If you are an ex­per­i­enced re­searcher, look for ques­tions that other re­search­ers ask but don’t an­swer. Many journal art­icles end with a para­graph or two about open ques­tions, ideas for more re­search, and so on (see 2.4.2 for an ex­ample). You might not be able to do all the re­search they sug­gest, but you might carve out a piece of it. You can also look for on­line dis­cus­sions or so­cial me­dia threads on your topic, then “lurk,” just read­ing the ex­changes to un­der­stand the de­bate. Re­cord ques­tions that spark your in­terest. If you feel ready, con­trib­ute some­thing your­self.

1.2.6  评估你的问题

1.2.6  Eval­u­ate Your Ques­tions

提出所有你能想到的问题之后，要对它们进行评估，因为并非所有问题都同样好。寻找那些答案能让你（理想情况下，也能让你的听众）以全新视角思考主题的问题。避免提出类似这样的问题：

After ask­ing all the ques­tions you can think of, eval­u­ate them, be­cause not all ques­tions are equally good. Look for ques­tions whose an­swers might make you (and, ideally, your audi­ence) think about your topic in a new way. Avoid ques­tions like these:

• 他们的答案都是一些显而易见的事实，你只要查一下就能知道。比如，瓷器的主要原料是什么？比起“谁”、“什么”、 “何时”或“何地” ，提出“如何”和“为什么”的问题更能引发深入思考，而深入思考又能带来更有趣的答案。
• ▪  Their an­swers are settled fact that you could just look up. What is the primary clay for por­cel­ain? Ques­tions that ask how and why in­vite deeper think­ing than who, what, when, or where, and deeper think­ing leads to more in­ter­est­ing an­swers.
• 他们的答案无法得到任何合理可找到的数据支持。威廉·莎士比亚拥有哪些书籍？令人遗憾的是，尽管几个世纪以来人们一直在研究莎士比亚的藏书，但至今仍没有一份可靠的莎士比亚藏书清单。 对此问题，大家并不感兴趣。所以，除非你取得了重大发现，否则你无法回答这个问题。
• ▪  Their an­swers can’t be sup­por­ted by any data you could reas­on­ably ex­pect to find. What books did Wil­liam Shakespeare own? Sadly, there’s no re­li­able in­vent­ory of Shakespeare’s lib­rary, des­pite cen­tur­ies of in­terest in this ques­tion. So it’s not one you can ad­dress, un­less of course you’ve made a mo­nu­mental dis­cov­ery.
• 他们的答案很可能毫无意义。亚伯拉罕·林肯去福特剧院之前吃了什么？很难看出这个问题的答案如何能帮助我们更好地思考任何值得理解的更宏大的问题，所以这个问题或许根本不值得问。
• ▪  Their an­swers are likely to be dead ends. What did Ab­ra­ham Lin­coln eat be­fore go­ing to Ford’s Theatre? It is hard to see how an an­swer would help us think about any lar­ger is­sue worth un­der­stand­ing bet­ter, so it’s a ques­tion that’s prob­ably not worth ask­ing.

但请记住：看似无益的问题，未必真的毫无意义。既定事实可能会被新的证据推翻，曾经看似无解的问题（例如，什么是人类意识？）如今已成为严谨的科学研究课题。即使是看似琐碎或愚蠢的问题，其答案也可能比预期的更有意义。一位研究人员曾好奇为什么洒出的咖啡会干涸成环状，结果发现了流体性质方面的一些规律，这些规律不仅被同行视为重要，也被油漆制造商视为宝贵的发现。所以，谁知道关于林肯晚餐的问题会把你引向何方呢？不到最后一刻，你永远无法预知。

But re­mem­ber: it’s al­ways pos­sible that a ques­tion that seems un­pro­duct­ive might not be. Settled facts can be­come un­settled with new evid­ence, and ques­tions that once seemed un­answer­able (e.g., What is hu­man con­scious­ness?) are now sub­jects of hard sci­entific re­search. Even ques­tions that seem trivial or silly can have an­swers more sig­ni­fic­ant than ex­pec­ted. One re­searcher wondered why a cof­fee spill dries up in the form of a ring and dis­covered things about the prop­er­ties of flu­ids that oth­ers in his field thought im­port­ant—and that paint man­u­fac­tur­ers found valu­able. So who knows where a ques­tion about Lin­coln’s din­ner might take you? You can’t know un­til you get there.

一旦你有了几个有前景的问题，就尝试将它们组合成更大的问题。例如，许多关于近期移除公共场所南方邦联纪念碑的做法的问题都意识到，捍卫移除或保留这些纪念碑的政治意义在于：移除的目的是什么？哪些因素促成了保留它们的论点？政客们是如何利用这场争议的？这些问题可以合并成一个单一的问题：

Once you have a few prom­ising ques­tions, try to com­bine them into lar­ger ones. For ex­ample, many ques­tions about the re­cent prac­tice of re­mov­ing Con­fed­er­ate monu­ments from pub­lic spaces re­cog­nize the polit­ical im­plic­a­tions of de­fend­ing their re­moval or pre­ser­va­tion: What pur­poses does re­moval serve? What factors con­trib­ute to ar­gu­ments to pre­serve them? How have politi­cians used the con­tro­versy? These can be com­bined into a single ques­tion:

在美国，保留或移除南方邦联纪念碑的问题是如何以及为何成为一个政治焦点的？

How and why has the pre­ser­va­tion or re­moval of Con­fed­er­ate monu­ments emerged as a polit­ical flash point in the United States?

这样的问题能为你的研究指明方向（并有助于避免收集无休止的信息）。它还能帮助你设想潜在的受众，由他们来判断你的问题是否重要。

A ques­tion like this gives dir­ec­tion to your re­search (and helps avoid the gath­er­ing of end­less in­form­a­tion). And it be­gins to ima­gine an audi­ence that will judge whether your ques­tion is sig­ni­fic­ant.

1.3.1  第一步：给你的主题命名

1.3.1  Step 1: Name Your Topic

如果你要启动一个项目，只有一个主题，或许还有一两个好问题的雏形，那就先给你的项目命名：

If you are be­gin­ning a pro­ject with only a topic and maybe the glim­mer­ings of a good ques­tion or two, start by nam­ing your pro­ject:

我正在学习/研究/学习________________。

I am try­ing to learn about/work­ing on/study­ing ________________.

请用以下由动词衍生出的名词填空，写出你的主题：

Fill in the blank with your topic, us­ing some of those nouns de­rived from verbs:

我正在研究北极冰芯样本……

我正在研究林肯关于预定论的信念及其对他的推理的影响 ……

I am study­ing Arc­tic ice-core samples . . .

I am work­ing on Lin­coln’s be­liefs about pre­des­tin­a­tion and their in­flu­ence on his reas­on­ing . . .

1.3.2  步骤 2：添加间接问句

1.3.2  Step 2: Add an In­dir­ect Ques­tion

添加一个间接问题，表明你对该主题有哪些不了解或不理解的地方：

Add an in­dir­ect ques­tion that in­dic­ates what you do not know or un­der­stand about your topic:

1. 1. 我正在学习/从事________________方面的工作。
   1. 2.因为我想知道谁/什么/何时/何地/是否/为什么/如何________________。
2. 1. I am study­ing/work­ing on ________________
   1. 2. be­cause I want to find out who/what/when/where/whether/why/how ________________.
3. 1. 我正在研究北极冰芯样本
   1. 2.因为我想了解过去地质时期的大气成分……
4. 1. I am study­ing Arc­tic ice-core samples
   1. 2. be­cause I want to find out the com­pos­i­tion of the at­mo­sphere in past geo­lo­gical eras . . .
5. 1. 我正在研究林肯关于预定论的信念及其对他推理的影响。
   1. 2.因为我想了解他对上帝旨意的理解如何影响了他对内战起因的理解……
6. 1. I am work­ing on Lin­coln’s be­liefs about pre­des­tin­a­tion and their in­flu­ence on his reas­on­ing
   1. 2. be­cause I want to find out how his no­tion of God’s will in­flu­enced his un­der­stand­ing of the causes of the Civil War . . .

当你加上“因为我想找出谁/.../如何”这样的从句时，你就说明了你研究这个主题的原因：为了回答一个对你来说很重要的问题。

When you add that be­cause I want to find out who/ . . . /how clause, you state why you are pur­su­ing your topic: to an­swer a ques­tion im­port­ant to you.

如果你是一位新晋研究员，并且已经走到这一步，那么恭喜你，因为你已经超越了单纯的数据收集阶段。但现在，如果可以的话，再进一步。资深研究员深知自己必须迈出这一步，因为他们明白，他们的工作最终的评判标准并非其对自身的意义，而是其对本领域其他研究者的意义。他们必须能够回答“那又怎样？”这个问题。

If you are a new re­searcher and get this far, con­grat­u­late your­self, be­cause you have moved bey­ond merely col­lect­ing data. But now, if you can, take one step more. It’s one that ad­vanced re­search­ers know they must take be­cause they know their work will be judged not by its sig­ni­fic­ance to them but by its sig­ni­fic­ance to oth­ers in their field. They must have an an­swer to So what?

1.3.3  第三步：通过阐述问题来回答“那又怎样？”

1.3.3  Step 3: An­swer So What? by Mo­tiv­at­ing Your Ques­tion

这一步可以告诉你，你的问题是否不仅你自己感兴趣，其他人也可能感兴趣。为此，可以添加第二个间接问题，解释你提出第一个问题的原因。引入第二个隐含问题时，可以使用以下语句：为了帮助听众理解“如何”、“为什么”或“是否”：

This step tells you whether your ques­tion might in­terest not just you but oth­ers. To do that, add a second in­dir­ect ques­tion that ex­plains why you asked your first ques­tion. In­tro­duce this second im­plied ques­tion with in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand how, why, or whether:

1. 1. 我正在研究北极冰芯样本
   1. 2. 因为我想了解过去地质时期的大气成分，
      1. 3.为了帮助我的听众了解地球气候随时间推移发生的变化。
2. 1. I am study­ing Arc­tic ice-core samples
   1. 2. be­cause I want to find out the com­pos­i­tion of the at­mo­sphere in past geo­lo­gical eras,
      1. 3. in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand how the earth’s cli­mate has changed over time.
3. 1. 我正在研究林肯关于预定论的信念及其对他推理的影响。
   1. 2. 因为我想了解他对上帝旨意的理解如何影响了他对内战起因的理解。
      1. 3.为了帮助我的听众理解他的宗教信仰如何影响了他的军事决策。
4. 1. I am work­ing on Lin­coln’s be­liefs about pre­des­tin­a­tion and their in­flu­ence on his reas­on­ing
   1. 2. be­cause I want to find out how his no­tion of God’s will in­flu­enced his un­der­stand­ing of the causes of the Civil War,
      1. 3. in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand how his re­li­gious be­liefs may have in­flu­enced his mil­it­ary de­cisions.

第三步中提出的间接问题，正是你希望能够吸引听众兴趣的地方。如果它触及了你所在领域的重要议题，即使是间接的，那么听众也应该会关心它的答案。

It is the in­dir­ect ques­tion in step 3 that you hope will seize your audi­ence’s in­terest. If it touches on is­sues im­port­ant to your field, even in­dir­ectly, then your audi­ence should care about its an­swer.

一些资深研究人员一开始就提出一些同行们早已关注的问题：中生代大气中甲烷的含量是多少？或者：冒险行为是否具有遗传基础？但许多研究人员发现，在完成初稿之前，他们无法完整地阐述这三个步骤中的最后一步。因此，在没有对第三个问题——“为什么这很重要？ ”——给出令人满意的答案的情况下开始研究并非错误，但如果在完成研究之前没有认真思考过这三个步骤，就会遇到问题。如果你从事的是前沿研究，那么尤其需要认真思考第三步，因为回答最后一个问题是你融入研究群体讨论的敲门砖。

Some ad­vanced re­search­ers be­gin with ques­tions that oth­ers in their field already care about: How much meth­ane was in the at­mo­sphere in the Meso­zoic Era? Or: Is risk tak­ing ge­net­ic­ally based? But many re­search­ers find that they can’t flesh out the last step in that three-part sen­tence un­til they fin­ish a first draft. So it’s not a mis­take to be­gin your re­search without a good an­swer to that third ques­tion—Why does this mat­ter?—but you face a prob­lem when you fin­ish your re­search without hav­ing thought through each of those three steps. And if you are do­ing ad­vanced re­search, you must take that third step es­pe­cially, be­cause an­swer­ing that last ques­tion is your ticket into the con­ver­sa­tion of your re­search com­munity.

通过与他人交流项目进展来检验你的成果。如果你是研究团队的一员，要定期与合作者讨论，不仅要讨论你在做什么，还要讨论为什么要做。如果你独自工作，可以和一位了解你研究领域的人交流。尽可能地，也要向那些了解不多但你尊重和信任的人解释你的项目。他们的提问和回答会促使你完成这三个步骤。即使你无法完全完成，你也会知道自己身处何处，以及还需要朝着哪个方向努力。

Test your pro­gress by talk­ing about your pro­ject with oth­ers. If you are part of a re­search team, reg­u­larly dis­cuss with your col­lab­or­at­ors not just what you are do­ing but why. If you are work­ing alone, talk with someone who is know­ledge­able about your sub­ject. Whenever you can, ex­plain your pro­ject also to people who know little about it but whom you re­spect and trust. Their ques­tions and re­sponses will force you to fill in those three steps. Even if you can’t do so fully, you’ll know where you are and where you still have to go.

总而言之：你的目标是解释

To sum­mar­ize: Your aim is to ex­plain

1. 1. 你正在研究的内容——我正在研究……
   1. 2. 你不知道的事情——因为我想弄清楚……
      1. 3. 你为什么希望你的受众了解并关注它——为了帮助我的受众更好地理解……
2. 1. what you are study­ing—I am work­ing on the topic of . . .
   1. 2. what you don’t know about it—be­cause I want to find out . . .
      1. 3. why you want your audi­ence to know and care about it—in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand bet­ter . . .

在接下来的章节中，我们将回到这三个步骤及其隐含的问题，因为它们对于构建你希望你的受众重视的研究问题至关重要。

In the fol­low­ing chapters, we re­turn to those three steps and their im­plied ques­tions, be­cause they are cru­cial for fram­ing the re­search prob­lem that you want your audi­ence to value.

▶ 小技巧：寻找主题

▶ Quick Tip: Find­ing Top­ics

如果您是初学者，请先参考我们关于探索互联网和浏览参考资料的建议（参见1.1）。如果您仍然一头雾水，请尝试以下步骤。

If you are a be­gin­ner, start with our sug­ges­tions about ex­plor­ing the in­ter­net and skim­ming ref­er­ence sources (see 1.1). If you still draw a blank, try these steps.

大众兴趣话题

For General Interest Topics

• 你有什么特别的兴趣爱好——帆船、国际象棋、雀类、老式漫画书？越冷门越好。研究一些你不知道的方面：它的起源、技术、在其他文化中的实践方式等等。
• ▪  What spe­cial in­terest do you have—sail­ing, chess, finches, old comic books? The less com­mon, the bet­ter. In­vest­ig­ate some­thing about it you don’t know: its ori­gins, its tech­no­logy, how it is prac­ticed in an­other cul­ture, and so on.
• 你想去哪里旅行？浏览网络和社交媒体，尽可能多地了解你的目的地。哪些方面让你感到惊讶或想要了解更多？
• ▪  Where would you like to travel? Scan the in­ter­net and so­cial me­dia, find­ing out all you can about your des­tin­a­tion. What par­tic­u­lar as­pect sur­prises you or makes you want to know more?
• ▪ 漫步于博物馆，欣赏你感兴趣的展览——艺术品、恐龙、老爷车。或者浏览许多博物馆现在都已在线发布的馆藏。当有什么东西吸引你的注意力时，停下来。你还想了解些什么呢？
• ▪  Wander through a mu­seum with ex­hib­i­tions that ap­peal to you—art­works, di­no­saurs, old cars. Or browse the col­lec­tions many mu­seums have now pos­ted on­line. Stop when some­thing catches your in­terest. What more do you want to know about it?
• ▪ 漫步在商店或工艺品市场中，问问自己：这是怎么做出来的？或者，我想知道是谁想出了这个产品？
• ▪  Wander through a store or craft mar­ket, ask­ing your­self, How do they make that? Or, I won­der who thought up that product?
• ▪ 浏览新闻来源和书籍或电影评论。
• ▪  Skim news sources and re­views of books or movies.
• ▪ 收听播客、观看 YouTube 视频或收看访谈节目，直到听到你不同意的观点。看看你是否能找到反驳它的论据。
• ▪  Listen to pod­casts, watch You­Tube videos, or tune in to in­ter­view pro­grams un­til you hear a claim that you dis­agree with. See whether you can make a case to re­fute it.
• ▪ 使用搜索引擎查找与您兴趣相关的网站和其他在线资源。您会得到数百条搜索结果，但只需关注那些让您感到惊喜的内容即可。
• ▪  Use a search en­gine to find web­sites and other on­line re­sources re­lated to your in­terests. You’ll get hun­dreds of hits, but look only at the ones that sur­prise you.
• ▪ 使用人工智能生成工具提出问题。然后评估这些问题，看看哪些值得探讨，并尝试将其中最好的问题融入我们的三个步骤中。
• ▪  Ask a gen­er­at­ive AI tool to sug­gest ques­tions. Then eval­u­ate those ques­tions to see if any are worth ad­dress­ing, and try to fit the best of them into our three steps.
• ▪ 思考一下你自身的身份认同。是什么让你与众不同？是什么将你与他人联系在一起？探究一下造就这些身份认同的历史（个人和社会历史）。
• ▪  Con­sider your own per­sonal iden­tit­ies. What makes you unique? What unites you with oth­ers? Look into the his­tor­ies (per­sonal and so­cial) that make these iden­tit­ies pos­sible.
• ▪ 你是否认为某种常见的观点过于简单化或有误？你觉得某些常见的做法不公正？那就去做调查研究，找出反对它的理由。
• ▪  Is there a com­mon be­lief that you sus­pect is simplistic or wrong? A com­mon prac­tice that you find un­just? Do re­search to make a case against it.
• ▪ 你未来打算学习哪些课程？哪些研究可以帮助你为这些课程做好准备？
• ▪  What courses will you take in the fu­ture? What re­search would help you pre­pare for them?

针对特定领域的主题

For Topics Focused on a Particular Field

如果您在该领域有经验，请复习1.1.2。

If you have ex­per­i­ence in your field, re­view 1.1.2.

• ▪ 找到你所在领域的社交媒体群组。浏览其存档内容，寻找有争议或不确定的话题。
• ▪  Find a so­cial me­dia group in your field. Browse its archives, look­ing for mat­ters of con­tro­versy or un­cer­tainty.
• ▪ 参加或在线观看你所在领域的公开讲座，并留意你不同意、不理解或想要了解更多的内容。
• ▪  At­tend or watch on­line a pub­lic lec­ture in your field, and listen for some­thing you dis­agree with, don’t un­der­stand, or want to know more about.
• 浏览各大高校院系的网站和社交媒体账号，包括课程网站。如果相关的话，也可以查看博物馆、国家协会、专业组织和政府机构的网站。
• ▪  Surf the web­sites and so­cial me­dia feeds of de­part­ments at ma­jor uni­ver­sit­ies, in­clud­ing class sites. Also check web­sites of mu­seums, na­tional as­so­ci­ations and pro­fes­sional or­gan­iz­a­tions, and gov­ern­ment agen­cies, if they seem rel­ev­ant.
• ▪ 如果你是学生，请向老师询问你所在领域中最具争议的问题。
• ▪  If you are a stu­dent, ask your teacher about the most con­tested is­sues in your field.
• ▪ 浏览一本比你当前水平高一级的课程教材，或者一本你确定将来要学习的课程教材。尤其要仔细阅读习题。
• ▪  Browse through a text­book for a course that is one level bey­ond yours or a course that you know you will have to take. Look es­pe­cially hard at the study ques­tions.

2.1.1  研究问题的常见结构

2.1.1  The Com­mon Struc­ture of Re­search Prob­lems

日常研究通常并非始于寻找写作主题，而是始于一个实际问题。如果忽视这个问题，就会带来麻烦。当问题的解决方案并不显而易见时，你必须找到解决之道。为此，你必须提出并解决另一种问题——一个研究问题，它由你对实际问题中未知或不理解的部分所定义。

Every­day re­search usu­ally be­gins not with find­ing a topic to write about but with a prac­tical prob­lem that if you ig­nore it means trouble. When its solu­tion is not ob­vi­ous, you have to find out how to solve it. To do that, you must pose and solve a prob­lem of an­other kind, a re­search prob­lem defined by what you do not know or un­der­stand about your prac­tical prob­lem.

这是一项常见的任务，通常如下所示：

It’s a fa­mil­iar task that typ­ic­ally looks like this:

• 实际 问题：我的自行车链条断了。
• PRAC­TICAL PROB­LEM: The chain on my bi­cycle broke.
• 研究 问题：我能找到愿意更换它的自行车店吗？
• RE­SEARCH PROB­LEM: Can I find a bike shop that will re­place it?
• 研究 解决方案：地址是：Cycle Source，东 55 街 1401 号。
• RE­SEARCH SOLU­TION: Here it is: Cycle Source, 1401 East 55th Street.
• 实际 解决方案：走过去修自行车。
• PRAC­TICAL SOLU­TION: Walk over to get my bike fixed.

这类问题本质上与更复杂的问题并无不同。

Prob­lems like that are in es­sence no dif­fer­ent from more com­plic­ated ones.

• 可再生能源产业协会正在游说我支持对风力发电的补贴。如果我同意，我会失去多少选票？做个调查吧。我的大多数选民都支持发展风力发电。我可以同意他们的请求。
• ▪  The Re­new­able En­ergy In­dus­tries As­so­ci­ation is lob­by­ing me to sup­port sub­sidies for wind power. How many votes will I lose if I agree? Do a sur­vey. Most of my con­stitu­ents sup­port the de­vel­op­ment of wind power. I can agree to the re­quest.
• 奥马哈工厂的成本上升了。是什么原因造成的？聘请一家咨询公司来找出原因。员工流动率上升了。如果我们改善培训和员工士气，我们的员工就会留下来。
• ▪  Costs are up at the Omaha plant. What changed? Hire a con­sult­ing firm to fig­ure it out. In­crease in turnover. If we im­prove train­ing and mor­ale, our work­ers will stick with us.

概括而言，实际问题是指世界上某些状况造成的困扰，这些状况会让我们损失时间、金钱、尊严、安全感、机会，甚至生命。解决实际问题的方法是通过采取行动（或鼓励他人采取行动）来消除或至少减轻造成这些实际损失的状况。

Put in gen­eral terms, a prac­tical prob­lem is caused by some con­di­tion in the world that troubles us be­cause it costs us time, money, re­spect, se­cur­ity, op­por­tun­ity, or even our lives. We solve a prac­tical prob­lem by do­ing some­thing (or by en­cour­aging oth­ers to do some­thing) to elim­in­ate or at least mit­ig­ate the con­di­tion cre­at­ing these tan­gible costs.

但要知道该怎么做，首先必须对某些事情有更深入的了解。例如，那位受到可再生能源产业协会游说的政客需要了解选民的意见才能决定如何投票；奥马哈发电厂的管理人员需要知道成本不断上涨的原因才能采取措施。

But to know what to do, someone first has to un­der­stand some­thing bet­ter. That politi­cian be­ing lob­bied by the Re­new­able En­ergy In­dus­tries As­so­ci­ation, for ex­ample, needs to un­der­stand con­stitu­ents’ views to de­cide how to vote; the man­agers of the Omaha plant need to know the cause of their in­creas­ing costs so they can ad­dress it.

2.1.2  理解实际问题：我们应该怎么做？

2.1.2  Un­der­stand­ing Prac­tical Prob­lems: What Should We Do?

一个实际问题包含两部分：一是造成难以承受的成本的条件，二是这些成本。要清晰地阐述一个实际问题，必须同时描述这两个部分。

A prac­tical prob­lem has two parts: a con­di­tion, which can be any­thing that im­poses in­tol­er­able costs, and those costs. To state a prac­tical prob­lem so that oth­ers un­der­stand it clearly, you must de­scribe both of its parts.

1. 1. 其条件：

   1. 我错过了公车。
   2. 海洋酸化程度正在加剧。
   3. 2.你（或你的观众）不喜欢的这种状况带来的代价：
   4. 我上班会迟到，还会丢掉工作。
   5. 有些浮游生物更难形成钙质外壳。

2. 1. Its con­di­tion:

   1. I missed the bus.
   2. The acid­ity of the oceans is in­creas­ing.
   3. 2. The costs of that con­di­tion that you (or your audi­ence) won’t like:
   4. I’ll be late for work and lose my job.
   5. It is more dif­fi­cult for some spe­cies of plank­ton to form their cal­cium shells.

但需要注意的是：你的听众判断问题的重要性，并非取决于你付出的代价，而是取决于如果你不解决这个问题，他们会付出怎样的代价。所以，你认为的问题，他们可能并不这么认为。要想让你的问题成为他们的问题，你必须从他们的角度出发来阐述，让他们看到这个问题对他们造成的损失。为了做到这一点，不妨想象一下……你提出的问题中的条件部分，以及你的听众的反应：“那又怎样？”

But a cau­tion: Mem­bers of your audi­ence will judge the sig­ni­fic­ance of your prob­lem not by the cost you pay, but by the cost they pay if you don’t solve it. So what you think is a prob­lem they might not. To make your prob­lem their prob­lem, you must frame it from their point of view, so that they see its costs to them. To do that, ima­gine pos­ing the con­di­tion part of your prob­lem and your audi­ence re­spond­ing, So what?

这些浮游生物种类正在减少。

所以呢？

Those spe­cies of plank­ton are de­clin­ing.

So what?

你用另一种代价来回答：

You an­swer with an­other cost:

以浮游生物为食的海洋生物也处境艰难。

Mar­ine life that de­pends on those plank­ton for food are also strug­gling.

假设他们再次问：“那又怎样？”，而你这次的回答是经济成本而不是环境成本：

Sup­pose they again ask, So what?, and you re­spond this time with an eco­nomic rather than en­vir­on­mental cost:

商业渔业产量下降，导致价格上涨和渔业失业率上升。

Pro­duc­tion from com­mer­cial fish­er­ies is de­clin­ing, lead­ing to higher prices and un­em­ploy­ment in the fish­ing in­dustry.

然而，即便这种可能性微乎其微，如果他们再次问“那又怎样？”，你就没能让他们相信他们确实存在问题。只有当我们不再问“那又怎样？”，而是问“我们该如何解决这个问题？”时，我们才算是真正承认了问题的存在。

If, how­ever im­prob­ably, they ask yet again, So what?, you have failed to con­vince them that they have a prob­lem. We ac­know­ledge a prob­lem only when we stop ask­ing, So what?, and say, in­stead, What do we do about it?

像这样的实际问题很容易理解，因为它们很具体：当物价上涨、人们失业时，我们不会问“那又怎样？”。然而，在学术研究中，你遇到的问题通常是概念性的问题，这些问题更难理解，因为它们的条件和成本都是抽象的。

Prac­tical prob­lems like this one are easy to grasp be­cause they are con­crete: when prices go up and people lose their jobs, we don’t ask, So what? In aca­demic re­search, how­ever, your prob­lems will usu­ally be con­cep­tual ones, which are harder to grasp be­cause both their con­di­tions and costs are ab­stract.

2.1.3  理解概念性问题：我们应该怎么想？

2.1.3  Un­der­stand­ing Con­cep­tual Prob­lems: What Should We Think?

对知识或理解的需求会引发概念性问题。在研究中，当我们对世界的某些方面理解不够透彻时，就会出现概念性问题。解决概念性问题并非通过改变世界，而是通过回答有助于我们更好地理解世界的问题。

That need for know­ledge or un­der­stand­ing raises a con­cep­tual prob­lem. In re­search, a con­cep­tual prob­lem arises when we do not un­der­stand some­thing about the world as well as we would like. We solve a con­cep­tual prob­lem not by do­ing some­thing to change the world but by an­swer­ing a ques­tion that helps us un­der­stand it bet­ter.

我们通常通过研究来解答这些问题，因此概念性问题有时也被称为研究性问题。“概念性”一词描述了问题的性质、成本或后果； “研究”一词则指的是我们如何解决这些问题。从图表上看，实践性问题与概念性问题或研究性问题之间的关系如下：

We usu­ally an­swer these ques­tions through re­search, which is why con­cep­tual prob­lems are some­times called re­search prob­lems. The word con­cep­tual de­scribes their con­di­tion and costs or con­sequences; the word re­search refers to how we solve them. Graph­ic­ally, the re­la­tion­ship between prac­tical and con­cep­tual or re­search prob­lems looks like this:

经验不足的研究人员有时会难以理解这些概念，因为经验丰富的研究人员通常用简略的语言谈论他们的工作。当被问及他们的研究方向时，他们常常会给出一些听起来像是我们之前提醒过你的那些宽泛主题的回答：比如成人麻疹、艾米莉·狄金森的韵律，或是怀俄明州麋鹿的求偶鸣叫。因此，初学者有时会误以为找到一个研究主题就等同于找到一个需要解决的问题。

In­ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers some­times struggle with these no­tions be­cause ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers of­ten talk about their work in short­hand. When asked what they are work­ing on, they of­ten an­swer with what sounds like one of those gen­eral top­ics we warned you about: adult measles, Emily Dickin­son’s pros­ody, or mat­ing calls of Wyom­ing elk. As a res­ult, be­gin­ners some­times think that hav­ing a topic to read about is the same as hav­ing a prob­lem to solve.

2.1.4  实际问题和概念问题的共同点

2.1.4  What Prac­tical and Con­cep­tual Prob­lems Have in Com­mon

实际问题和概念问题都具有相同的两部分结构，但它们的条件和成本却有所不同。

Prac­tical and con­cep­tual prob­lems have the same two-part struc­ture, but they have dif­fer­ent kinds of con­di­tions and costs.

• ▪ 实际问题的状态可以是任何会给你或你的听众带来实际损失的情况。
• ▪  The con­di­tion of a prac­tical prob­lem can be any state of af­fairs that has a tan­gible cost for you or, bet­ter, for your audi­ence.
• 然而，概念性​​问题的本质总是某种形式的不知道或不理解。
• ▪  The con­di­tion of a con­cep­tual prob­lem, how­ever, is al­ways some ver­sion of not know­ing or not un­der­stand­ing some­thing.

你可以通过完成以下三步句来识别概念性问题（参见1.3）：第一步是“我正在学习/研究________这个主题”。第二步，间接问句陈述了概念性问题的状态，即你不知道或不理解的内容：

You can identify the con­di­tion of a con­cep­tual prob­lem by com­plet­ing that three-step sen­tence (see 1.3): The first step is I am study­ing/work­ing on the topic of ________. In the second step, the in­dir­ect ques­tion states the con­di­tion of a con­cep­tual prob­lem, what you do not know or un­der­stand:

我正在研究二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”作为女权主义偶像的演变，因为我想了解这个人物是如何以及为什么随着时间的推移获得了各种各样的含义。

I am study­ing the evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon be­cause I want to un­der­stand how and why that fig­ure has ac­quired a range of mean­ings over time.

这就是为什么我们强调问题的价值：问题迫使你承认自己不了解或不理解但又渴望了解的事物。由于你的问题将指导你的研究，因此要特别注意问题的表述方式，它可能会如何引导你走向特定的方向，或者排除某些可能的答案或视角。例如，关于“铆钉女工罗西”的问题，其表述方式可能会让你忽略，甚至忽略罗西的形象是如何边缘化有色人种女性的。真正优秀的科研能够帮助我们和受众摆脱无知和偏见，但最难克服的偏见恰恰存在于我们提出的问题和难题本身之中。

That’s why we em­phas­ize the value of ques­tions: they force you to state what you don’t know or un­der­stand but want to. Since your prob­lem will guide your re­search, be es­pe­cially at­tent­ive to how its for­mu­la­tion might steer you in par­tic­u­lar dir­ec­tions or ex­clude pos­sible an­swers or per­spect­ives. For ex­ample, the prob­lem about Rosie the Riv­eter as it’s phrased might keep you from re­cog­niz­ing, or even look­ing into, how the ori­ginal Rosie fig­ure mar­gin­al­izes wo­men of color. Au­then­tic re­search at its best el­ev­ates us and our audi­ences out of ig­nor­ance and bias, but the most dif­fi­cult bi­ases to res­ist are those em­bed­ded in our ques­tions and prob­lems them­selves.

这两种问题带来的成本也不同。

The two kinds of prob­lems also have two dif­fer­ent kinds of costs.

• ▪实际问题的代价总是我们不喜欢的某种有形的东西或情况。
• ▪  The cost of a prac­tical prob­lem is al­ways some tan­gible thing or situ­ation we don’t like.

概念性问题不会产生这种切实的代价。事实上，我们将通过称概念性问题的代价为其后果来强调这种区别。

A con­cep­tual prob­lem does not have such a tan­gible cost. In fact, we’ll em­phas­ize this dif­fer­ence by call­ing the cost of a con­cep­tual prob­lem its con­sequence.

• 概念性问题会导致一种特殊的无知：正是由于缺乏理解，我们才无法理解其他更重要的事物。换句话说，因为我们没有回答一个问题，所以我们也无法回答另一个更重要的问题。
• ▪  The con­sequence of a con­cep­tual prob­lem is a par­tic­u­lar kind of ig­nor­ance: it is a lack of un­der­stand­ing that keeps us from un­der­stand­ing some­thing else even more sig­ni­fic­ant. Put an­other way, be­cause we haven’t answered one ques­tion, we can’t an­swer an­other that is more im­port­ant.

研究人员选择研究项目往往只是出于好奇。事实上，我们大多数人最初对所研究的课题产生兴趣也是出于好奇。但要想让你的研究对他人有意义，你不能仅仅说“我发现这个很有意思”，而应该向他们展示解决你的问题如何帮助他们解决自身的问题。而做到这一点的方法就是解释你的问题所带来的后果。

Re­search­ers of­ten choose pro­jects simply be­cause they are curi­ous. In fact, that’s how most of us first be­come in­ter­ested in the sub­jects we study. But to make your re­search mat­ter to oth­ers, you have to say more than Here is some­thing I find in­ter­est­ing. You have to show them how solv­ing your prob­lem helps them solve theirs. You do that by ex­plain­ing your prob­lem’s con­sequence.

在我们的公式第三步中，您可以通过间接问句表达问题的后果：

You ex­press a prob­lem’s con­sequence in the in­dir­ect ques­tion in step 3 of our for­mula:

我正在研究二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”作为女权主义偶像的演变，因为我想了解这个人物是如何以及为什么随着时间的推移获得了各种各样的含义，从而理解图像是如何被重新用于新的目的，以及它们如何具有许多观众没有意识到的排他性含义。

I am study­ing the evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon be­cause I want to find out how and why that fig­ure has ac­quired a range of mean­ings over time to un­der­stand how im­ages can be re­pur­posed to new ends and also have ex­clu­sion­ary mean­ings that many view­ers didn’t re­cog­nize.

这一切听起来可能令人困惑，但其实比看起来要简单得多。概念性问题的条件和结果这两个问题之间存在两种关联：

All of this may sound con­fus­ing, but it is sim­pler than it seems. The con­di­tion and the con­sequence of a con­cep­tual prob­lem are ques­tions that re­late to each other in two ways:

• ▪ 第一个问题（Q1）的答案有助于你回答第二个问题（Q2）。
• ▪  The an­swer to the first ques­tion (Q1) helps you an­swer the second (Q2).
• ▪ 第二个问题（Q2）的答案比第一个问题（Q1）的答案更重要。
• ▪  The an­swer to the second ques­tion (Q2) is more im­port­ant than the an­swer to the first (Q1).

同样，研究问题的第一部分是你不知道但想要了解的东西。你可以将这种知识或理解上的不足表述为一个直接的问题：过去五十年里，爱情电影发生了哪些变化？或者，也可以表述为一个间接的问题：我想了解过去五十年里爱情电影发生了哪些变化。

Again, the first part of a re­search prob­lem is some­thing you don’t know but want to. You can phrase that gap in know­ledge or un­der­stand­ing as a dir­ect ques­tion: How have ro­mantic movies changed in the last fifty years? Or as an in­dir­ect ques­tion: I want to find out how ro­mantic movies have changed in the last fifty years.

现在想象一下有人问：如果你回答不了这个问题怎么办？你的回答是：说明一些比第一个问题的答案更重要的信息。例如：

Now ima­gine someone ask­ing, So what if you can’t an­swer that ques­tion? You an­swer by stat­ing some­thing else more im­port­ant that the an­swer to the first ques­tion helps you know. For ex­ample:

回答“过去五十年浪漫电影发生了哪些变化”这个问题_{（前提/第一个问题）有助于} 我们回答一个更重要的问题：我们对浪漫爱情的文化描绘发生了哪些变化？ _{（结果/更重要的第二个问题）}

An­swer­ing the ques­tion of how ro­mantic movies have changed in the last fifty years_{con­di­tion/first ques­tion} helps us an­swer a more im­port­ant ques­tion: How have our cul­tural de­pic­tions of ro­mantic love changed?_{con­sequence/lar­ger, more im­port­ant second ques­tion}

如果你认为回答第二个问题很重要，那么你就提出了一个值得探究的后果，如果你的听众也同意这一点，那么你就成功了。

If you think it’s im­port­ant to an­swer that second ques­tion, you’ve stated a con­sequence that makes your prob­lem worth pur­su­ing, and if your audi­ence agrees, you’re in busi­ness.

但如果你设想你的听众再次提出这样的问题：“如果我们现在对浪漫爱情的描绘方式与过去是否有所不同，那又该如何呢？”你必须提出一个更宏大的问题，你希望你的听众会认为这个问题意义重大：

But what if you ima­gine your audi­ence again ask­ing, So what if I don’t know whether we now de­pict ro­mantic love dif­fer­ently than we once did? You have to pose a yet lar­ger ques­tion that you hope your audi­ence will think is sig­ni­fic­ant:

回答“我们对浪漫爱情的描绘发生了怎样的变化”这个问题，有助于_{我们回答一个更重要的问题：我们的文化如何塑造年轻男女对婚姻和家庭的期望？ （由此引申出一个更广泛、更重要的问题）}

An­swer­ing the ques­tion of how our de­pic­tions of ro­mantic love have changed_{second ques­tion} helps us an­swer an even more im­port­ant one: How does our cul­ture shape the ex­pect­a­tions of young men and wo­men about mar­riage and fam­il­ies?_{con­sequence/lar­ger, more im­port­ant ques­tion}

如果你想象你的听众再次问“那又怎样？”，你可能会想，找错听众了。但如果你不得不面对这样的听众，你只能再试一次：好吧，如果我们不回答这个问题，我们就无法……

If you ima­gine your audi­ence again ask­ing, So what?, you might think, Wrong audi­ence. But if that’s the audi­ence you’re stuck with, you just have to try again: Well, if we don’t an­swer that ques­tion, we can’t . . .

学术界之外的人常常认为，学术专家们问的问题荒谬至极：跳房子游戏是怎么起源的？但他们却没意识到，研究人员之所以想要解答这类问题，是为了解答第二个更重要的问题。对于那些关心民间游戏如何影响儿童社会发展的人来说，未知带来的概念性后果恰恰证明了研究的必要性。如果我们能够发现儿童民间游戏的起源，就能更好地理解游戏是如何帮助儿童进行社会化的；而且，在你问之前，我先解释一下，一旦我们了解了这一点，就能更好地理解……

Those out­side an aca­demic field of­ten think that its spe­cial­ists ask ri­dicu­lously trivial ques­tions: How did hopscotch ori­gin­ate? But they fail to real­ize that re­search­ers want to an­swer a ques­tion like that so that they can an­swer a second, more im­port­ant one. For those who care about the way folk games in­flu­ence the so­cial de­vel­op­ment of chil­dren, the con­cep­tual con­sequences of not know­ing jus­tify the re­search. If we can dis­cover how chil­dren’s folk games ori­gin­ate, we can bet­ter un­der­stand how games so­cial­ize chil­dren, and, be­fore you ask, once we know that, we can bet­ter un­der­stand . . .

2.4.1  寻求帮助

2.4.1  Ask for Help

像经验丰富的研究人员那样做：与同事、老师、同学、亲戚、朋友、邻居——任何可能感兴趣的人交谈。为什么有人会想要你问题的答案？他们会用这个答案做什么？答案又会引发哪些新的问题？

Do what ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers do: talk to col­leagues, teach­ers, class­mates, re­l­at­ives, friends, neigh­bors—any­one who might be in­ter­ested. Why would any­one want an an­swer to your ques­tion? What would they do with it? What new ques­tions might an an­swer raise?

如果你可以自由地研究任何问题，那就找一个大问题的一部分，哪怕只是其中的一小部分。虽然你可能无法解决整个大问题，但你所研究的这部分也会对整个问题产生重要影响。（你还能借此机会了解你所在领域的问题，这可不是什么小好处。）如果你是学生，可以问问老师他们在研究什么，以及你是否可以参与其中的一部分。不要让他们的建议左右你的决定。你的研究存在局限性。没有什么比学生仅仅按照老师的建议去做，而没有做任何额外的工作更让老师感到沮丧的了。老师希望你用他们的建议来启发你的思考，而不是止步于此。没有什么比你运用他们的建议发现他们意想不到的东西更让老师高兴的了。

If you are free to work on any prob­lem, look for a small one that is part of a big­ger one. Though you won’t solve the big one, your small piece of it will in­herit some of its lar­ger sig­ni­fic­ance. (You will also edu­cate your­self about the prob­lems of your field, no small be­ne­fit.) If you are a stu­dent, ask your teach­ers what they are work­ing on and whether you can work on part of it. Don’t let their sug­ges­tions define the lim­its of your re­search. Noth­ing dis­cour­ages a teacher more than a stu­dent who does ex­actly what is sug­ges­ted and no more. Teach­ers want you to use their sug­ges­tions to start your think­ing, not end it. Noth­ing makes teach­ers hap­pier than when you use their sug­ges­tions to find some­thing they never ex­pec­ted.

2.4.2  阅读过程中寻找问题

2.4.2  Look for Prob­lems as You Read

你也可以在资料来源中发现研究问题。你在这些资料中发现了哪些矛盾、不一致或不完整的解释？不妨先假设其他人也会或应该有同样的感受。许多研究项目都始于与资料来源作者的一场假想对话：“等等，你忽略了……”。但在你着手纠正某个漏洞或误解之前，务必确认它是真实存在的，而不仅仅是你自己的误读。无数的研究论文都反驳过一些根本没人提出过的观点。（在4.3节中，我们列举了作者们为了发现资料来源中的问题而常用的几种“方法”，这些方法都类似于“资料来源认为X，但我认为Y”。）

You can also find re­search prob­lems in your sources. Where in them do you see con­tra­dic­tions, in­con­sist­en­cies, in­com­plete ex­plan­a­tions? Tent­at­ively as­sume that oth­ers would or should feel the same. Many re­search pro­jects be­gin with an ima­gin­ary con­ver­sa­tion with the au­thor of a source: Wait a minute, you’re ig­nor­ing . . . But be­fore you set out to cor­rect a gap or mis­un­der­stand­ing, be sure it’s real, not just your own mis­read­ing. Count­less re­search pa­pers have re­futed a point that no one ever made. (In 4.3 we list sev­eral com­mon “moves” that writers make to find a prob­lem in a source, vari­ations on Source thinks X, but I think Y.)

一旦你认为自己发现了一个真正的谜题或错误，不要仅仅指出来就完事。如果某个资料来源说的是X，而你认为​​的是Y，那么你可能遇到了研究问题，但前提是你能证明那些认为X的人也误解了某些更深层次的问题。

Once you think you’ve found a real puzzle or er­ror, do more than just point to it. If a source says X and you think Y, you may have a re­search prob­lem, but only if you can show that those who think X mis­un­der­stand some lar­ger is­sue as well.

最后，仔细阅读资料的最后几页。许多研究者会在那里提出更多需要解答的问题。以下段落的作者刚刚解释完19世纪俄罗斯农民的生活如何影响他们作为士兵的表现：

Fi­nally, read the last few pages of your sources closely. That’s where many re­search­ers sug­gest more ques­tions that need an­swers. The au­thor of the fol­low­ing para­graph had just fin­ished ex­plain­ing how the life of nine­teenth-cen­tury Rus­sian peas­ants in­flu­enced their per­form­ance as sol­diers:

正如士兵的和平时期经历影响了他们在战场上的表现一样，军官的经历也必然影响了他们在战场上的表现。事实上，日俄战争后，一些评论家将俄军的战败归咎于军官在日常事务中养成的习惯。无论如何，为了了解沙皇时期军官在和平时期和战争时期的服役习惯，我们需要对军官队伍进行结构性分析——或者说，一种人类学分析——就像本文对士兵所做的那样。 [重点为原文所有]

And just as the sol­dier’s peace­time ex­per­i­ence in­flu­enced his bat­tle­field per­form­ance, so must the ex­per­i­ence of the of­ficer corps have in­flu­enced theirs. In­deed, a few com­ment­at­ors after the Russo-Ja­pan­ese War blamed the Rus­sian de­feat on habits ac­quired by of­ficers in the course of their eco­nomic chores. In any event, to ap­pre­ci­ate the ser­vice habits of Tsar­ist of­ficers in peace and war, we need a struc­tural—if you will, an an­thro­po­lo­gical—ana­lysis of the of­ficer corps like that offered here for en­lis­ted per­son­nel. [our em­phasis]

最后一句话引出了一个新问题，等着你去解决。

That last sen­tence of­fers a new prob­lem wait­ing for you to tackle.

2.4.3  审视你自己的结论

2.4.3  Look at Your Own Con­clu­sion

批判性阅读也能帮助你在自己的草稿中发现好的研究问题。我们往往在写作的最后几页思路最为清晰，因为正是在这段时间里，我们会提出一些起初并未预料到的观点。如果在早期草稿中你突然想到一个意料之外的观点，不妨问问自己，它可能回答了什么问题。这听起来或许有些矛盾，但你可能已经回答了一个你尚未提出的问题，从而解决了一个你尚未提出的难题。你的任务就是找出这个难题究竟是什么。

Crit­ical read­ing can also help you dis­cover a good re­search prob­lem in your own drafts. We of­ten do our best think­ing in the last few pages that we write be­cause it is there that we for­mu­late claims we did not an­ti­cip­ate when we star­ted. If in an early draft you ar­rive at an unanti­cip­ated claim, ask your­self what ques­tion it might an­swer. Para­dox­ical as it might seem, you may have answered a ques­tion that you have not yet asked and thereby solved a prob­lem that you have not yet posed. Your task is to fig­ure out what that prob­lem might be.

3.1.1  证据的主要来源

3.1.1  Primary Sources for Evid­ence

原始资料是指提供“原始数据”或证据的“原始材料”，您将使用这些材料来发展和检验您的假设或主张，并最终支持您的论证理由。不同领域的原始资料定义差异很大。在历史学中，原始资料是指直接来自史料或文献的文物。你研究的时期或事件可以是信件、日记、物品、地图，甚至是衣物。在文学或哲学领域，你的主要原始资料通常是你正在分析的文本（例如，莎士比亚的《麦克白》或汉娜·阿伦特的《人的境况》） ，你的数据就是文本上的文字。在艺术批评中，你的原始资料是你所解读的艺术作品。在社会科学领域，例如社会学或政治学，人口普查或调查数据也属于原始资料，通过访谈、田野调查（民族志观察）或实验获得的数据也属于原始资料。在自然科学领域，原创研究报告有时也被视为原始资料（尽管科学家本身很少使用这个术语）。

Primary sources are “ori­ginal” ma­ter­i­als that provide you with the “raw data” or evid­ence you will use to de­velop and test your hy­po­thesis or claim and ul­ti­mately to sup­port the reas­ons in your ar­gu­ment. What counts as a primary source var­ies sig­ni­fic­antly by field. In his­tory, primary sources are ar­ti­facts or doc­u­ments that come dir­ectly from the period or event you are study­ing: let­ters, di­ar­ies, ob­jects, maps, even cloth­ing. In lit­er­at­ure or philo­sophy, your main primary source is usu­ally the text (e.g., Shakespeare’s Macbeth or Han­nah Arendt’s The Hu­man Con­di­tion) you are ana­lyz­ing, and your data are the words on the page. In arts cri­ti­cism, your primary source would be the work of art you are in­ter­pret­ing. In so­cial sci­ences, such as so­ci­ology or polit­ical sci­ence, census or sur­vey data would also count as primary, as could data ob­tained through in­ter­views, field­work (eth­no­graphic ob­ser­va­tion), or ex­per­i­ments. In the nat­ural sci­ences, re­ports of ori­ginal re­search are some­times char­ac­ter­ized as primary sources (al­though sci­ent­ists them­selves rarely use that term).

3.1.2  向其他研究者学习的二手资料

3.1.2  Sec­ond­ary Sources for Learn­ing from Other Re­search­ers

二手资料是指基于一手资料撰写，面向学术或专业读者的书籍、文章或报告。某一领域的二手资料总和有时被称为该领域的文献。最佳的二手资料包括来自知名大学出版社的书籍以及经过同行评审的文章或报告，这意味着它们在出版前已经过该领域专家的审查。研究人员阅读二手资料是为了了解各自领域的最新进展，并以此激发自身的思考。构建新研究问题的标准方法是挑战或拓展他人已发表在二手资料中的结论或方法。二手资料还包括收录该领域学者文章的专业百科全书和词典。二手资料过去主要通过高校图书馆获取，但现在也可以通过在线目录和数据库获取，例如 EBSCOhost 和 Google Scholar。

Sec­ond­ary sources are books, art­icles, or re­ports that are based on primary sources and are in­ten­ded for schol­arly or pro­fes­sional audi­ences. The body of sec­ond­ary sources in a field is some­times called that field’s lit­er­at­ure. The best sec­ond­ary sources are books from reput­able uni­ver­sity presses and art­icles or re­ports that have been peer-re­viewed, mean­ing that they were vet­ted by ex­perts in the field be­fore they were pub­lished. Re­search­ers read sec­ond­ary sources to keep up with de­vel­op­ments in their fields and, in this way, to stim­u­late their own think­ing. The stand­ard way of fram­ing new re­search prob­lems is to chal­lenge or build on the con­clu­sions or meth­ods of oth­ers, as presen­ted in sec­ond­ary sources they have writ­ten. Sec­ond­ary sources also in­clude spe­cial­ized en­cyc­lo­pe­dias and dic­tion­ar­ies that of­fer es­says by schol­ars in a field. Sec­ond­ary sources were once avail­able mainly through col­lege and uni­ver­sity lib­rar­ies, but they are also avail­able through on­line cata­logs and data­bases, in­clud­ing EB­SCO­host and Google Scholar.

你可以出于以下三个主要目的使用二手资料：

You can use sec­ond­ary sources for three main pur­poses:

1. 1.了解其他人对你研究主题的论述。二手资料是了解其他研究者对你研究主题的看法以及他们认为哪些问题重要的最佳途径。（不仅要关注他们提出的研究问题，还要关注他们提出的任何其他问题。）你或许可以借鉴其中某个问题来构建你的研究问题。
2. 1. To learn what oth­ers have writ­ten about your topic. Sec­ond­ary sources are the best way to learn what other re­search­ers have said about your topic as well as what kinds of ques­tions they think are im­port­ant. (Pay at­ten­tion not only to the re­search ques­tions they ad­dress but also to any ad­di­tional ques­tions they pose.) You may be able to model your ques­tion on one of these.
3. 2.寻找其他观点。初学者有时会认为，如果提及与自己观点相悖的想法，就会削弱自己的论证。但事实恰恰相反：当你承认对立观点时，不仅表明你已经考虑过这些观点，也表明你能够回应它们（参见第九章）。只有当你设想并回应读者可能提出的问题和异议时，你的研究才算完整。你可以在二手资料中找到这些。他们提出了哪些与你的观点不同的替代方案？他们引用了哪些你必须承认的证据？更重要的是，你可以利用他人的论点来检验和完善自己的观点。只有了解一个理性的人为何会持有不同观点，你才能真正理解自己的想法。因此，在寻找资料时，不仅要寻找支持你观点的资料，还要寻找挑战你观点的资料。
4. 2. To find other points of view. Be­gin­ning re­search­ers some­times be­lieve they will weaken their case if they men­tion ideas that con­tra­dict their own. The op­pos­ite is ac­tu­ally true: when you ac­know­ledge op­pos­ing views, you show your audi­ence not only that you have con­sidered those views but also that you can re­spond to them (see chapter 9). Your re­search will be com­plete only when you ima­gine and re­spond to your audi­ence’s pre­dict­able ques­tions and dis­agree­ments. You can find those in sec­ond­ary sources. What al­tern­at­ives to your ideas do they of­fer? What evid­ence do they cite that you must ac­know­ledge? More im­port­ant, you can use the ar­gu­ments of oth­ers to test and im­prove your own. You can­not un­der­stand what you think un­til you know why a reas­on­able per­son might think dif­fer­ently. So as you search for sources, look not only for those that sup­port your views but also for those that chal­lenge them.
5. 3.寻找研究和写作的范例。你可以利用二手资料，不仅了解其他人对你的主题写了些什么，还要了解他们是如何写作的。如果你的大多数资料都使用了标题、图表和大量的要点，那么你可以考虑也这样做；如果你的资料​​从未使用过这些，你可能就不应该这样做。注意一些细节，例如语言（专业术语还是通俗易懂？）、段落（长段落还是短段落？）以及他们如何使用其他资料（引用还是转述？）。特别注意他们大多使用的证据类型以及他们很少或从未使用的证据类型。你还可以将二手资料作为自己论证的范例。你不能直接照搬资料中的具体论点和理由，但你可以在自己的论证中使用类似的推理方式，甚至可以采用相同的结构。因此，如果你遇到一篇并非完全针对你的主题，但却以类似方式论述的资料，不妨快速浏览一下，看看你能从中学习到哪些论证方法。 （如果您只是引用该来源的逻辑，则无需注明出处；但您可以引用该来源以增强您自身论点的说服力。）
6. 3. To find mod­els for your own re­search and writ­ing. You can use sec­ond­ary sources to find out not just what oth­ers have writ­ten about your topic but also how they have writ­ten about it. If most of your sources use head­ings, charts, and lots of bul­let points, then you might con­sider do­ing the same; if your sources never use them, you prob­ably shouldn’t. No­tice things like the lan­guage (tech­nical or broadly ac­cess­ible?), para­graphs (long or short?), and how they use other sources (quo­ta­tion or para­phrase?). Pay spe­cial at­ten­tion to the kinds of evid­ence most of them use and the kinds of evid­ence they rarely or never use. You can also use sec­ond­ary sources as mod­els for your own ar­gu­ment. You can­not re­use a source’s spe­cific claims and reas­ons, but you can use the same kind of reas­on­ing in your own ar­gu­ment, per­haps even fol­low­ing the same or­gan­iz­a­tion. So if you come across a source that’s not pre­cisely on your topic but treats one like it, skim it to see what you can learn about how to ar­gue your case. (You don’t have to cite that source if you use only its lo­gic, but you may cite it to give your own more au­thor­ity.)

3.1.3  导论性概述的第三手资料

3.1.3  Ter­tiary Sources for In­tro­duct­ory Over­views

三级文献是指面向普通读者，综合二级文献内容的书籍和文章。它们包括教科书、百科全书（包括维基百科）条目以及面向大众的出版物文章。例如，像《今日心理学》这样的媒体，甚至是一些教育类的YouTube视频，都是不错的参考资料。在研究初期，你可以利用三手资料来大致了解你的研究主题。但如果你要进行学术论证，就应该依赖二手资料，因为这些资料构成了你想要参与的学术讨论。如果在学术论证中引用三手资料，你会显得自己要么是新手，要么是局外人，很多读者不会认真对待你或你的论点。

Ter­tiary sources are books and art­icles that syn­thes­ize sec­ond­ary sources for gen­eral read­ers. They in­clude text­books, art­icles in en­cyc­lo­pe­dias (in­clud­ing Wiki­pe­dia), art­icles in pub­lic­a­tions for broad audi­ences like Psy­cho­logy Today, or even some edu­ca­tional You­Tube videos. In the early stages of re­search, you can use ter­tiary sources to get a broad over­view of your topic. But if you are mak­ing a schol­arly ar­gu­ment, you should rely on sec­ond­ary sources be­cause these make up the con­ver­sa­tion in which you are seek­ing to par­ti­cip­ate. If you cite ter­tiary sources in a schol­arly ar­gu­ment, you will mark your­self as either a novice or an out­sider, and many read­ers won’t take you or your ar­gu­ment ser­i­ously.

这种说法或许听起来不太公平，但并非如此。三手资料并非一定错误——事实上，其中许多出自杰出学者之手——但它们确实存在局限性。由于三手资料面向的是对相关主题不熟悉的广大读者，因此它们有时会过度简化其研究基础，而且容易过时。但如果您牢记这些局限性，三手资料仍然可以成为宝贵的资源：它们可以为您介绍一些您不熟悉的主题，而且如果它们附有参考文献，有时还能引导您找到有价值的二手资料。

This re­sponse may seem un­fair, but it’s not. Ter­tiary sources aren’t ne­ces­sar­ily wrong—many are in fact writ­ten by dis­tin­guished schol­ars—but they are lim­ited. Be­cause they are in­ten­ded for broad audi­ences who are un­fa­mil­iar with the top­ics they ad­dress, ter­tiary sources can some­times over­sim­plify the re­search on which they are based, and they are sus­cept­ible to be­com­ing out­dated. But if you keep these lim­it­a­tions in mind, ter­tiary sources can be valu­able re­sources: they can in­form you about top­ics that are new to you, and if they have bib­li­o­graph­ies, they can some­times lead you to valu­able sec­ond­ary sources.

3.1.4  区分一手资料、二手资料和三手资料

3.1.4  Dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing Primary, Sec­ond­ary, and Ter­tiary Sources

研究人员并非一直将资料分为这三类。一手资料和二手资料的区分起源于19世纪的历史学家，之后扩展到其他领域。三手资料这一类别是后来才加入的。虽然现在这套分类方法已成为学生学习资料分类的标准方式，但它对某些学科的适用性高于其他学科。它非常适用于历史学，因为历史学的一手资料是指与特定历史事件或时期直接相关的材料；也适用于批评学，因为批评学的一手资料是指你所解读的艺术、音乐或文学作品的原作。但对于数学、化学或护理学等学科来说，它的适用性就没那么高了。

Re­search­ers haven’t al­ways di­vided their sources into these three cat­egor­ies. The dis­tinc­tion between primary and sec­ond­ary sources ori­gin­ated with his­tor­i­ans in the nine­teenth cen­tury and then spread to other fields. The cat­egory of ter­tiary sources was ad­ded later. Al­though this scheme is now the stand­ard way that stu­dents are taught to clas­sify sources, it fits some dis­cip­lines bet­ter than oth­ers. It works very well for his­tory, in which primary sources are ma­ter­i­als dir­ectly con­nec­ted to a his­tor­ical event or mo­ment, and for cri­ti­cism, in which primary sources are the ori­ginal works of art, mu­sic, or lit­er­at­ure that you are in­ter­pret­ing. But it works less well for, say, math­em­at­ics, chem­istry, or nurs­ing.

同样重要的是要理解，一级、二级和三级文献的分类并非绝对，而是相对于研究者的研究项目而言的。在大多数情况下，学术期刊上的文章会被视为二级文献。但如果你的研究问题与文章作者或该领域本身相关，例如，如果你正在撰写人类学家玛格丽特·斯图尔特的传记，那么这篇文章就变成了一级文献。米德。同样，如果你研究的是艾略特，那么艾略特的散文《哈姆雷特及其困境》就是一手资料；但如果你研究的是莎士比亚，那么它就是二手资料。百科全书条目通常被认为是三手资料，但如果你研究的是百科全书如何处理性别问题，那么它就变成了一手资料。关于竞选活动的TED演讲在政治学中可能是三手资料，但在媒体研究中可能是一手资料。改变你的研究方向，你就会改变资料的分类。

It is also im­port­ant to un­der­stand that the clas­si­fic­a­tions of primary, sec­ond­ary, and ter­tiary are not ab­so­lute but re­l­at­ive to a re­searcher’s pro­ject. In most in­stances, an art­icle in a schol­arly journal would be con­sidered a sec­ond­ary source. But it would be­come a primary source if your re­search prob­lem con­cerned its au­thor or the field it­self, for ex­ample, if you were writ­ing a bio­graphy of the an­thro­po­lo­gist Mar­garet Mead. Like­wise, T. S. Eliot’s es­say “Ham­let and His Prob­lems” would be a primary source if you were study­ing Eliot but a sec­ond­ary source if you were study­ing Shakespeare. An en­cyc­lo­pe­dia art­icle would usu­ally be con­sidered a ter­tiary source, but it would be­come a primary source if you were study­ing the way that en­cyc­lo­pe­dias deal with gender is­sues. A TED Talk on elec­tion cam­paigns might be a ter­tiary source in polit­ical sci­ence but a primary source in me­dia stud­ies. Change your fo­cus and you change the clas­si­fic­a­tion of your sources.

如果这让你感到困惑，其实不必如此。记住，这些分类只是达到目的的手段。最终，重要的不是你如何称呼你的资料来源，而是你如何有效地运用它们来解决你的研究问题、发展新思路并提出引人入胜的论点。在下一章中，我们将更详细地讨论如何在写作中使用资料来源。

If this is con­fus­ing, it need not be. Re­mem­ber that these clas­si­fic­a­tions are just a means to an end. The im­port­ant thing, ul­ti­mately, is not what you call your sources but how well you use them to ad­dress your re­search prob­lems, de­velop new ideas, and make in­ter­est­ing ar­gu­ments. In the next chapter, we will talk more about how you can use sources in your writ­ing.

3.2.1  规划您的图书馆检索

3.2.1  Plan­ning Your Lib­rary Search

在使用资料来源之前，您必须先找到并评估它们。一些最终会成为资料来源的材料可能就存放在您的图书馆里；而另一些则可能在其他地方，例如网上或其他场所。在其他图书馆。因此，要想充分利用图书馆提供的资源，您必须提前规划好检索路线。幸运的是，这正是图书馆及其图书管理员最能发挥作用的地方。

Be­fore you can use sources, you must first find and eval­u­ate them. Some ma­ter­i­als that will even­tu­ally serve as sources will be phys­ic­ally loc­ated in your lib­rary; oth­ers are likely else­where, whether on­line or at an­other lib­rary. To take ad­vant­age of what lib­rar­ies have to of­fer, then, you must plan your search. For­tu­nately, this is where lib­rar­ies—and lib­rar­i­ans—are most use­ful.

一开始，如何着手查找资料可能会让人不知所措。有了研究主题或问题后，人们很容易直接在图书馆的搜索引擎中输入几个关键词，看看能搜到什么结果。我们也会这样做，但我们也知道，图书馆提供了更系统、更高效的方法来发现有用且可靠的资源。

Know­ing where to be­gin a search can be over­whelm­ing at first. With a topic or a re­search ques­tion in hand, it is tempt­ing simply to enter a few terms in your lib­rary’s search en­gine and see what comes up. We do this too, but we also know that the lib­rary of­fers more sys­tem­atic and pro­duct­ive meth­ods for dis­cov­er­ing use­ful and cred­ible sources.

咨询图书馆员。或许我们能提供的最佳建议就是依靠图书馆员的研究专长。无论是普通参考咨询馆员，还是（在规模较大的图书馆中）学科专家，都能帮助您优化检索参数，并指导您找到针对特定研究问题的合适工具。他们可以帮助您使用馆藏目录查找本馆或其他图书馆的馆藏资料（以及可通过馆际互借获取的资料）。这些图书馆员通常还会编写研究指南，列出特定领域的参考书目和在线数据库。

Ask a Lib­rar­ian. Per­haps the best ad­vice we can of­fer is to rely on the re­search ex­pert­ise of lib­rar­i­ans. Both gen­eral ref­er­ence lib­rar­i­ans and (in lar­ger lib­rar­ies) sub­ject-area spe­cial­ists can help you re­fine your search para­met­ers and dir­ect you to the right tools for your spe­cific re­search ques­tion. They can help you use the cata­log to loc­ate ma­ter­i­als held by your lib­rary or by other lib­rar­ies (and ob­tain­able through in­ter­lib­rary loan). These same lib­rar­i­ans typ­ic­ally design re­search guides that identify ref­er­ence works and on­line data­bases for spe­cific fields.

别害羞。图书馆员乐于帮助各个层次、各个阶段的研究人员。他们可以帮助您明确研究问题、制定检索词，并整理检索结果，确保您没有遗漏任何有价值的信息。唯一令人尴尬的问题是您应该问却没问的问题。当然，提前做好准备对繁忙的图书馆员来说是有益的。如果您已经准备好一个完善的研究问题，图书馆员就能更好地为您提供建议。您可以参考第一章中的三步评估标准来描述您的项目：

And don’t be shy. Lib­rar­i­ans love to as­sist re­search­ers of all levels and at all stages of the re­search pro­cess. They can help you for­mu­late your re­search ques­tion, de­velop search terms, and in­vent­ory your res­ults to en­sure you haven’t over­looked some­thing of value. The only em­bar­rass­ing ques­tion is the one you failed to ask but should have. Of course, it pays to meet busy lib­rar­i­ans halfway by pre­par­ing in ad­vance. If you have a well-de­veloped re­search ques­tion ready to share, your lib­rar­ian will be able to give you bet­ter ad­vice. You might de­scribe your pro­ject us­ing the three-step rub­ric from chapter 1:

1. 1. 我正在研究20世纪80年代的教育政策。
   1. 2. 了解中西部地区的学校董事会如何处理种族融合问题
      1. 3. 因为我想了解种族关系中的地区差异。
2. 1. I am work­ing on edu­ca­tional policy in the 1980s
   1. 2. to find out how school boards in the Mid­w­est dealt with de­seg­reg­a­tion
      1. 3. be­cause I want to un­der­stand re­gional dif­fer­ences in race re­la­tions.

查阅参考资料。如果您对某个主题已经非常了解，您可能也知道如何找到相关资料。但如果您对这个主题还不熟悉，那就需要参考其他资料了。对于某个主题，切勿急于直接查阅你认为相关的原始资料或二手资料。这种方法既不可靠又难以预测，而且可能也节省不了你的时间。更有效的策略是让参考书引导你的检索工作。由专家编纂的综合性参考书，例如《不列颠百科全书》，以及更专业的参考书，例如《哲学百科全书》 ，都能为你提供大致的概览，让你更容易理解你的资料在整体框架中的位置。此外，参考书通常包含引文或书目，这些引文或书目可以引导你找到那些你可能忽略的资料。

Con­sult Ref­er­ence Works. If you already know a lot about your topic, you prob­ably also know how to find sources on it. But if you are new to a topic, res­ist the tempta­tion to go straight to primary or sec­ond­ary sources that strike you as rel­ev­ant. This ap­proach is un­re­li­able and un­pre­dict­able and prob­ably won’t save you any time. A more suc­cess­ful strategy is to al­low ref­er­ence works to shape your search ef­forts. Com­piled by ex­perts, both gen­eral ref­er­ence works such as the En­cyc­lo­pae­dia Brit­an­nica and more spe­cial­ized works such as the En­cyc­lo­pe­dia of Philo­sophy will give you the lay of the land, so that later it will be easier to see how your sources fit within the big­ger pic­ture. In ad­di­tion, ref­er­ence works of­ten in­clude cita­tions or bib­li­o­graph­ies that can lead you to sources you might oth­er­wise over­look.

在研究初期，书目资料尤为重要，其中许多都提供了关于某一主题的重要文章或书籍的摘要。寻找带有注释的书目或年度文献综述，这些资料通常会总结近期出版的书籍或文章，因为它们往往能为你的研究提供有价值的线索。

Es­pe­cially valu­able at early stages of re­search are bib­li­o­graphic works, many of which provide ab­stracts sum­mar­iz­ing sig­ni­fic­ant art­icles or books on a topic. Look for an­not­ated bib­li­o­graph­ies or an­nual lit­er­at­ure re­views that sum up re­cent books or art­icles be­cause these of­ten of­fer prom­ising leads for your re­search.

探索在线数据库。图书馆与公共互联网的区别在于其订阅的索引和数据库。除了书籍之外，这些数据库可以说是图书馆最宝贵的资产，因为它们使研究人员能够获取原本无法获得的资料。每家图书馆的订阅内容都不尽相同，大型研究型图书馆通常提供最全面的专业索引和数据库访问权限。然而，所有学术图书馆和许多公共图书馆都提供一套强大的在线工具，极大地扩展了其馆藏。在研究中，您肯定会需要利用这些通用和专业资源。至少要熟悉您所在图书馆订阅的主要数据库，例如 JSTOR、Academic Search Premier、MLA International Bibliography 或 PubMed。许多学术数据库提供摘要或引导您找到包含摘要的文章。查看这些摘要可以帮助您判断文章本身是否值得阅读。一些数据库还允许您访问全文文章甚至书籍。但请注意：如果您的图书馆没有订阅数据库中收录的特定期刊，您可能需要付费才能访问全文。在此之前，请务必先咨询图书馆员，了解其他访问方式。

Ex­plore On­line Data­bases. What sets lib­rar­ies apart from the pub­licly avail­able in­ter­net are their sub­scrip­tions to in­dexes and data­bases. After books, these are ar­gu­ably a lib­rary’s most valu­able as­sets, since they give re­search­ers ac­cess to ma­ter­i­als they could not ob­tain oth­er­wise. Each lib­rary’s sub­scrip­tions will dif­fer, with ma­jor re­search lib­rar­ies of­fer­ing the most com­pre­hens­ive ac­cess to spe­cial­ized in­dexes and data­bases. How­ever, every aca­demic lib­rary and many pub­lic lib­rar­ies of­fer a power­ful set of on­line tools that greatly ex­tend their ac­tual col­lec­tions. You will cer­tainly want to make use of these gen­eral and spe­cial­ized re­sources in your re­search. At least be­come fa­mil­iar with the ma­jor data­bases to which your lib­rary sub­scribes, such as JSTOR, Aca­demic Search Premier, MLA In­ter­na­tional Bib­li­o­graphy, or PubMed. Many aca­demic data­bases either provide ab­stracts or dir­ect you to art­icles that in­clude ab­stracts. Look­ing at these can help you de­cide if an art­icle it­self is worth read­ing. Some data­bases al­low you to ac­cess full-text art­icles and even books. But be aware: if your lib­rary does not sub­scribe to a par­tic­u­lar journal in­cluded in a data­base, you might be asked to pay a fee to ac­cess a full-text art­icle. Be­fore do­ing so, al­ways speak with a lib­rar­ian about other means of ac­cess.

3.2.2  寻找具体资源

3.2.2  Find­ing Spe­cific Sources

在考虑了检索策略和资源之后，您现在可以开始在图书馆内外寻找特定的资源。当然，这个过程并非完全线性。一个资源可能会引导您找到其他资源，并让您重新访问之前浏览过的目录和数据库，只不过这次需要使用新的检索词。新手研究人员往往过于依赖少数几个检索词，或者使用过于宽泛（或过于狭窄）而无法找到相关资源的检索词。成功的研究人员深知必须灵活变通：检索通常需要反复尝试，才能找到能够检索到最相关资源的检索词。

Hav­ing con­sidered your search strategies and re­sources, you are now in a po­s­i­tion to look for spe­cific sources in and bey­ond the lib­rary. Of course, this pro­cess is not strictly lin­ear. A single source can lead to oth­ers and re­turn you to cata­logs and data­bases you have already vis­ited, only this time with new search terms. Novice re­search­ers of­ten rely too heav­ily on only a few terms or on terms that prove to be too broad (or nar­row) to call up rel­ev­ant sources. Suc­cess­ful re­search­ers know they have to be flex­ible: searches typ­ic­ally in­volve trial and er­ror to dis­cover those terms that will yield the most rel­ev­ant sources.

检索图书馆目录。在研究过程中，您可能需要以两种互补的方式使用图书馆目录：关键词检索和浏览。当您查阅了一些资料，确定了与您的研究主题相关的关键词列表后，就可以使用这些关键词在目录中进行检索了。在大多数图书馆，您必须选择要用于检索的类别（书籍、文章、期刊等）。

Search Your Lib­rary Cata­log. In your re­search, you will prob­ably need to use your lib­rary’s cata­log in two com­ple­ment­ary ways: keyword search­ing and brows­ing. When you have ex­amined some sources to identify a list of keywords as­so­ci­ated with your topic, you are ready to use these terms to search the cata­log. In most lib­rar­ies, you must choose the cat­egory (books, art­icles, journ­als, etc.) you wish to use for your search.

如果您的资料来源包括书籍，您可以使用美国国会图书馆主题词表（可在书籍扉页背面或在线目录的“详情”页面找到）来查找相关资料。本书扉页背面列出了以下术语：

If your sources in­clude books, you can use Lib­rary of Con­gress sub­ject head­ings, found either on the back of a book’s title page or on its “de­tails” page in the on­line cata­log, to search for re­lated ma­ter­i­als. On the back of this book’s title page are the terms

研究方法论 | 技术写作

Re­search—Meth­od­o­logy. | Tech­nical writ­ing.

如果您在网上目录中搜索这些关键词，就能找到其他相关主题的书籍。一本书可能同时被归入多个主题类别。在这种情况下，不妨也快速浏览一下这些类别下的书名。您或许能找到一些原本会错过的有用资源。您还可以浏览目录，查找索书号相似的书籍。一旦找到一本看似符合您需求的书籍，就利用它的索书号查找与其放在同一书架上的其他书籍。在您要查找的书籍的目录条目中，找到“浏览”链接。虽然这个列表不如关键词列表那样精准，但其中可能包含一些意想不到的宝藏。所以，不要局限于与目标最接近的书籍，花些时间广泛浏览吧。

If you search an on­line cata­log for those terms, you will find other books on those sub­jects. A book may be cross-lis­ted un­der mul­tiple sub­ject head­ings. In that case, take a quick look at the titles lis­ted un­der those head­ings as well. You may find use­ful sources you would have missed oth­er­wise. You can also browse the cata­log for books with sim­ilar call num­bers. Once you identify a book that seems on tar­get, use its call num­ber to find oth­ers shelved along with it. Look for the browse link in your book’s cata­log entry. This list will be less fo­cused than a keyword list, but it may con­tain un­ex­pec­ted gems. So don’t re­strict your­self to books nearest your tar­get. In­vest the time to browse widely.

任何在线搜索的问题在于，它可能会返回数量庞大的结果。芝加哥大学图书馆有关于拿破仑的书籍成百上千，书名中包含“环境”一词的书籍更是数不胜数。如果搜索结果过多，请缩小范围。如今的在线目录提供了多种搜索限制方式：出版日期、语言、主题、资源类型（书籍、文章、数据库等），以及其他一些限制条件（具体取决于目录）。如果您不确定如何缩小搜索范围，可以先从出版日期入手。将范围限定为过去十五年内出版的文献；如果结果仍然过多，则进一步缩小至过去十年。

The prob­lem with any on­line search is that it may pro­duce an over­whelm­ing num­ber of titles. The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago lib­rary has hun­dreds of books on Na­po­leon and thou­sands with the word en­vir­on­ment in their titles. If your search turns up too many sources, nar­row it down. Today’s on­line cata­logs let you limit searches in many ways: by date of pub­lic­a­tion, lan­guage, sub­ject, re­source type (books, art­icles, data­bases, etc.), and pos­sibly oth­ers de­pend­ing on the cata­log. If you can’t de­cide how to nar­row your search, start with the date of pub­lic­a­tion. Re­strict it to those sources pub­lished in the last fif­teen years; if that still turns up too many, cut to the last ten years.

在查阅了美国国会图书馆或大型大学图书馆的馆藏目录后，您可能会发现您所在的图书馆只收藏了您找到的资料的一小部分。不过，您的图书馆很可能可以通过馆际互借等服务帮您借到所需的资料。如果图书馆无法帮您找到所需的资料，或者无法及时送达，那么您可以考虑购买。

After you search the Lib­rary of Con­gress or a large uni­ver­sity cata­log, you may dis­cover that your lib­rary holds only a frac­tion of what you found. But your lib­rary can likely help you bor­row what you need through a ser­vice such as in­ter­lib­rary loan. If your lib­rary can­not get you some­thing, or can­not get it to you in time for it to be use­ful, then you might con­sider buy­ing it.

另一方面，如果你一无所获，可能是你的选题过于狭窄或过于另类，难以快速取得成果。但你也可能触及了一个重要的问题，而这个问题此前无人思考过，至少很久以来如此。例如，“友谊”曾是哲学家们关注的重要议题，但后来却长期被主流百科全书所忽略。然而，近年来，它又重新成为严肃的研究课题。你或许只有通过自己的深入思考，才能在一个被忽视的课题上有所建树。从长远来看，这项研究或许能让你名声大噪，但它可能并不适用于几周后就要交的论文。

On the other hand, if you find noth­ing, your topic may be too nar­row or too far off the beaten track to yield quick res­ults. But you could also be on to an im­port­ant ques­tion that nobody else has thought about, at least not for a while. For ex­ample, “friend­ship” was once an im­port­ant topic for philo­soph­ers, but it was then long ig­nored by ma­jor en­cyc­lo­pe­dias. Re­cently, though, it has ree­m­erged as a topic of ser­i­ous re­search. Chances are you’ll make some­thing of a neg­lected topic only through your own hard think­ing. In the long run, that re­search might make you fam­ous, but it prob­ably won’t work for a pa­per due in a few weeks.

浏览书库。在线查找资料比步行查找要快得多，但如果你从未去过图书馆的书库（假设你被允许进入），你可能会错过一些只有在那里才能找到的关键资料。更重要的是，你会错过偶然发现的乐趣——那种只有当某个书名恰巧吸引你的目光时，才会遇到的宝贵资料。（我们都曾以这种方式发现过重要的资料。）

Browse the Stacks. Do­ing re­search on­line is faster than on foot, but if you never go into the stacks of your lib­rary (as­sum­ing you are al­lowed to), you may miss cru­cial sources that you will find only there. More im­port­ant, you’ll miss the be­ne­fits of serendip­ity—a chance en­counter with a valu­able source that oc­curs only when a title hap­pens to catch your eye. (All of us have found im­port­ant sources in this way.)

如果能进入书库，找到摆放你研究主题书籍的书架，然后浏览该书架上的书名，再浏览上方、下方和两侧的书架，尤其要注意大学出版社出版的新装本。然后转身快速浏览身后的书名；你永远不知道会有什么发现。在审阅一本有潜力的学术著作时，快速浏览书架上的书名。首先浏览其目录和与你的问题相关的关键词索引。然后快速浏览其参考文献，寻找其他相关的书籍。手捧一本书比在线查找要快得多。（有关系统性略读的更多信息，请参见3.4 。）

If you can get into the stacks, find the shelf with books on your topic, then scan the titles on that shelf, then on the ones above, be­low, and on either side, es­pe­cially for books with new bind­ings pub­lished by uni­ver­sity presses. Then turn around and skim titles be­hind you; you never know. When ex­amin­ing a prom­ising schol­arly book, skim its table of con­tents and in­dex for keywords re­lated to your ques­tion. Then skim its bib­li­o­graphy for other titles that look rel­ev­ant. You can do all that faster with a book in your hand than you can on­line. (See 3.4 for more on sys­tem­atic skim­ming.)

你可以在网上查看大多数期刊的目录，但浏览书架上的期刊可能更有效率。一旦你在网上或参考文献中发现了一些有潜力的期刊，就去书架上找到它们。快速浏览一下近十年的合订本（大多数合订本前面都有年度目录）。然后快速查看一下附近书架上的期刊。你会惊讶地发现，很多相关的文章你在网上很容易错过。

You can check tables of con­tents for most journ­als on­line, but brows­ing among shelved journ­als can be more pro­duct­ive. Once you identify prom­ising journ­als on­line or in bib­li­o­graph­ies, find them on the shelf. Skim the bound volumes for the last ten years (most have an an­nual table of con­tents in front). Then take a quick look at journ­als shelved nearby. You will be sur­prised how of­ten you find a rel­ev­ant art­icle that you would have missed on­line.

如果您无法亲自到馆浏览书架，或许可以尝试在线浏览。虽然在线浏览无法完全替代手捧书页翻阅或在书架上滑动手指寻找书籍的体验，但它仍然能让您感受到一些亲身浏览的惊喜。事实上，您应该同时使用这两种方式进行浏览，因为像在线期刊和电子书这样的电子资源只能在图书馆的在线目录中找到。大多数图书馆目录都允许您按索书号顺序浏览馆藏。如果您不知道如何查找，请咨询图书馆员。

If you can’t browse your stacks in per­son, you might be able to browse them vir­tu­ally. While vir­tual brows­ing is no sub­sti­tute for hold­ing a book in your hands and flip­ping through its pages, or for run­ning your fin­ger along a shelf to see what you find, it still al­lows you to ex­per­i­ence some of the serendip­ity of in-per­son brows­ing. In fact, you should al­ways browse them both ways be­cause you can only find elec­tronic sources like on­line journ­als and ebooks in your lib­rary’s on­line cata­log. Most lib­rary cata­logs al­low you to scroll through their hold­ings se­quen­tially by call num­ber. If you don’t know how to search that way, ask a lib­rar­ian.

沿着文献路径进行检索。大多数资源都会提供文献检索的起点。当你找到看似有用的学术资源时，浏览其参考文献或引用作品列表，寻找其他有价值的资源。如果该资源是书籍，请查看其索引。一般来说，图表的论述越详尽，该图表就越重要。期刊文章通常以对先前研究的回顾开头，并列出所有引用的文献。通过沿着这条文献路径，你可以避开最棘手的研究领域，因为一个资源总是会引出其他资源，而其他资源又会引出更多资源，如此循环往复……但请记住，沿着文献路径进行检索是一种回顾性的工作——它会将你引向其他研究者在写作时认为重要的资源，而这些资源在今天可能仍然重要，也可能不再重要。此外，它还可能延续一种特定的偏见，即过去被引用的资源会被继续引用，而其他观点则被排除在外。

Fol­low Bib­li­o­graphic Trails. Most sources will give you trail­heads for bib­li­o­graphic searches. When you find a schol­arly source that seems use­ful, skim its bib­li­o­graphy or works cited for other prom­ising sources. If that source is a book, check its in­dex. Gen­er­ally, the more ex­tens­ive a fig­ure’s treat­ment, the more im­port­ant that fig­ure is. Journal art­icles usu­ally be­gin with a re­view of pre­vi­ous re­search, all cited. By fol­low­ing this bib­li­o­graphic trail, you can nav­ig­ate the most dif­fi­cult re­search ter­rit­ory be­cause one source al­ways leads to oth­ers, which lead to oth­ers, which lead to . . . But re­mem­ber that fol­low­ing bib­li­o­graphic trails is a ret­ro­spect­ive ex­er­cise—it will lead you to sources other re­search­ers thought were im­port­ant when they were writ­ing, and those sources may or may not be as im­port­ant today. It can also per­petu­ate a par­tic­u­lar kind of bias, in which sources cited in the past con­tinue to be cited, to the ex­clu­sion of other voices.

使用引文索引。许多在线目录和数据库允许您查找引用已知文献的其他来源。这种称为引文索引的技术，就像沿着书目路径向前追溯，而不是向后追溯。您无需查找某个文献引用的其他来源（反向引用 ，而是查找引用该文献的其他来源（正向引用） 。过去，研究人员需要查阅纸质引文索引才能进行此类研究，这可能需要数小时甚至数天的时间。但如今的在线目录和数据库使之变得轻松便捷。一般来说，某个文献被引用的次数越多，其声誉和影响力就越大。但需要注意的是：有时，某些文献被频繁引用是因为它们质量很差，或者因为它们代表了曾经流行但已被证伪的观点。

Use Cita­tion In­dex­ing. Many on­line cata­logs and data­bases let you look up other sources that cite one that you already know. This tech­nique, called cita­tion in­dex­ing, is like fol­low­ing a bib­li­o­graphic trail, but for­ward rather than back­ward. In­stead of search­ing for sources that a given source cites, back­ward cita­tion, you can search for sources that cite a given source, or for­ward cita­tion. To do this kind of re­search, re­search­ers used to have to con­sult prin­ted cita­tion in­dexes, a pro­cess that could take hours or even days. But today’s on­line cata­logs and data­bases make it easy. Gen­er­ally, the more a given source is cited, the greater its repu­ta­tion and im­pact. Again, be care­ful: oc­ca­sion­ally, sources are cited fre­quently be­cause they are so bad or be­cause they rep­res­ent ideas that once were prom­in­ent but have been de­bunked.

因此，衡量一个信息来源的可信度，既要看它引用的信息来源，也要看引用它的信息来源。通过追踪文献脉络并结合使用引文索引，您可以构建一个丰富的信息来源网络，为您的研究提供支持。

A source’s cred­ib­il­ity can thus be gauged both by the sources it cites and by the sources that cite it. By fol­low­ing bib­li­o­graphic trails and us­ing cita­tion in­dex­ing in tan­dem, you can build up a rich net­work of sources to sup­port your own re­search.

3.4.1  评估信息来源的相关性

3.4.1  Eval­u­at­ing Sources for Rel­ev­ance

如果你的资料​​来源是纸质书或电子书，请这样做：

If your source is a book or an ebook, do this:

• ▪ 先浏览索引，找出关键词，然后浏览包含这些关键词的页面。如果来源是电子书，则可以搜索全文以查找关键词。
• ▪  Skim its in­dex for your keywords, then skim the pages on which those words oc­cur. If the source is an ebook, you can search the whole text for your keywords.
• ▪ 浏览章节中大量使用关键词的第一段和最后一段。
• ▪  Skim the first and last para­graphs in chapters that use a lot of your keywords.
• ▪ 略读序言、引言、概要章节等。
• ▪  Skim pro­logues, in­tro­duc­tions, sum­mary chapters, and so on.
• ▪ 略读最后一章，特别是开头和结尾两三页。
• ▪  Skim the last chapter, es­pe­cially the first and last two or three pages.
• ▪ 如果来源是文章集，请浏览编辑的导言。
• ▪  If the source is a col­lec­tion of art­icles, skim the ed­itor’s in­tro­duc­tion.
• ▪ 查看参考书目，寻找与您的主题相关的书籍。
• ▪  Check the bib­li­o­graphy for titles rel­ev­ant to your topic.

如果你的信息来源是网络或纸质期刊文章，请这样做：

If your source is an on­line or print journal art­icle, do this:

• ▪ 阅读摘要（如果有的话）。
• ▪  Read the ab­stract, if it has one.
• ▪ 如果文章在网上，请在文本中搜索关键词。
• ▪  If the art­icle is on­line, search the text for your keywords.
• ▪ 略读引言和结论，或者如果它们没有用标题标记，则略读前六七段和后四五段。
• ▪  Skim the in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion, or if they are not marked off by head­ings, skim the first six or seven para­graphs and the last four or five.
• ▪ 浏览章节标题，并阅读各章节的第一段和最后一段。
• ▪  Skim for sec­tion head­ings, and read the first and last para­graphs of those sec­tions.
• ▪ 查看参考书目，寻找与您的主题相关的书籍。
• ▪  Check the bib­li­o­graphy for titles rel­ev­ant to your topic.

如果你的信息来源是其他类型的网络资料，请这样做：

If your source is an­other type of on­line ma­ter­ial, do this:

• ▪ 如果它看起来像一篇印刷文章，请按照期刊文章的步骤进行操作，并搜索您的关键词。
• ▪  If it looks like a prin­ted art­icle, fol­low the steps for a journal art­icle, and also search for your keywords.
• ▪ 略读标有“引言”、“概述”、“摘要”或“诸如此类。如果没有，请查找名为“关于本站”或类似标题的链接。
• ▪  Skim sec­tions labeled “in­tro­duc­tion,” “over­view,” “sum­mary,” or the like. If there are none, look for a link labeled “About the Site” or some­thing sim­ilar.
• ▪ 如果网站有标有“网站地图”或“索引”的链接，请检查其中是否包含您的关键词，并浏览引用的页面。
• ▪  If the site has a link labeled “Site Map” or “In­dex,” check it for your keywords and skim the ref­er­enced pages.
• ▪ 如果网站有“搜索”功能，请输入关键词。
• ▪  If the site has a “search” re­source, type in your keywords.

这种快速阅读方式可以指导你自己的写作和修改。如果你没有合理组织文章结构，让读者能够快速浏览并了解你的论点概要，那么你的文章就存在问题，我们将在第10章和第11章讨论这个问题。

This kind of speedy read­ing can guide your own writ­ing and re­vi­sion. If you do not struc­ture your pa­per so your read­ers can skim it quickly and see the out­lines of your ar­gu­ment, your pa­per has a prob­lem, an is­sue we dis­cuss in chapters 10 and 11.

3.4.2  评估信息源的可靠性

3.4.2  Eval­u­at­ing Sources for Re­li­ab­il­ity

你需要培养对信息来源可靠性的判断力。这需要经验和实践的积累，也需要对信息来源的准确性和背后的动机保持一定的怀疑态度。通常来说，依赖那些致力于支持权威研究的机构是比较稳妥的，例如大学、大学出版社、学术期刊以及一些独立的科研基金会。但这些机构本身在信息传播方面也存在局限性：它们可能会排除与既有观点相悖的新想法，或者排除那些来自拥有不同见解、背景和经验的人的观点。因此，你也必须运用自己的判断力，而且你随时可以与老师、导师或图书馆员讨论你对特定信息来源的疑虑。

You need to de­velop a feel for the re­li­ab­il­ity of your sources. This is some­thing that comes with ex­per­i­ence and prac­tice and from cul­tiv­at­ing a cer­tain de­gree of skep­ti­cism about the ac­cur­acy of and mo­tiv­a­tions be­hind the claims sources make. It’s usu­ally safe to rely on the in­sti­tu­tions that ex­ist to sup­port au­then­tic re­search, such as uni­ver­sit­ies, uni­ver­sity presses, aca­demic journ­als, and some in­de­pend­ent re­search found­a­tions. But those in­sti­tu­tions them­selves can also be lim­ited in what they al­low into the con­ver­sa­tion: they may per­haps ex­clude new ideas that con­flict with more es­tab­lished ones or that come from people with di­verse in­sights, back­grounds, and ex­per­i­ences. So you must also ex­er­cise your own judg­ment, and you can al­ways dis­cuss your con­cerns about spe­cific sources with a teacher, mentor, or lib­rar­ian.

以下是一些可靠性的标志：

Here are some signs of re­li­ab­il­ity:

1. 1.该信息来源是否由信誉良好的出版社以纸质或在线形式出版？大多数大学出版社及其出版的书籍和期刊都比较可靠，尤其是当您熟悉该大学的名称时。一些商业出版社（与大学无关）在某些领域也值得信赖，例如诺顿出版社在文学领域、爱思唯尔出版社在科学领域以及韦斯特出版社在法律领域。对于商业出版的书籍，尤其是那些做出耸人听闻的论断的自出版书籍，尤其是在涉及争议性问题时，要保持怀疑态度。即使作者拥有“博士学位”，他们的学术成果也未必可信（这关乎信誉；参见5.6）。尤其要对某些机构保持警惕，例如……游说团体或行业组织，披着学术机构的外衣，但实际上并非学术机构。
2. 1. Is the source pub­lished in print or on­line by a reput­able press? Most uni­ver­sity presses and the books and journ­als they pub­lish are re­li­able, es­pe­cially if you re­cog­nize the name of the uni­ver­sity. Some com­mer­cial presses, which are presses not as­so­ci­ated with a uni­ver­sity, are re­li­able in some fields, such as Norton in lit­er­at­ure, El­sevier in the sci­ences, or West in law. Be skep­tical of com­mer­cial and es­pe­cially self-pub­lished books that make sen­sa­tional claims, es­pe­cially about hotly con­tested is­sues. Even if au­thors have “PhD” after their names, their schol­ar­ship may still not be trust­worthy (it’s a mat­ter of ethos; see 5.6). Be es­pe­cially skep­tical of or­gan­iz­a­tions, such as lob­by­ing or trade or­gan­iz­a­tions, that ad­opt the trap­pings of aca­demic in­sti­tu­tions but are not.
3. 2.该书或文章是否经过同行评审？大多数信誉良好的出版社和期刊在出版前都会请专家对书籍或文章的内容准确性和可靠性进行评审；这被称为同行评审。大学出版社出版的论文集通常（但不总是）经过同行评审；有时仅由指定的编辑进行评审。很少有商业出版社或杂志采用同行评审。如果某出版物未经同行评审，则需谨慎。
4. 2. Was the book or art­icle peer-re­viewed? Most reput­able presses and journ­als ask ex­perts to re­view a book or art­icle for ac­cur­acy and sound­ness of con­tent be­fore it is pub­lished; this is called peer re­view. Es­say col­lec­tions pub­lished by uni­ver­sity presses are of­ten but not al­ways peer-re­viewed; some­times they are re­viewed only by the named ed­itor or ed­it­ors. Few com­mer­cial presses or magazines use peer re­view. If a pub­lic­a­tion hasn’t been peer-re­viewed, be cau­tious.
5. 3.作者是否是知名学者？如果您是该领域的新手，这个问题很难回答。大多数出版物都会列出作者的学术资质；您可以通过搜索引擎查找更多信息。大多数资深学者都值得信赖，但即使是知名学者也可能心怀私利，尤其当他们的研究获得特定利益集团的资助时。使用搜索引擎查看作者感谢了哪些人，包括资助他们研究的基金会。
6. 3. Is the au­thor a reput­able scholar? This is hard to an­swer if you are new to a field. Most pub­lic­a­tions cite an au­thor’s aca­demic cre­den­tials; you can find more with a search en­gine. Most es­tab­lished schol­ars are re­li­able, but even reput­able schol­ars can have axes to grind, es­pe­cially if their re­search is fin­an­cially sup­por­ted by a spe­cial in­terest group. Use a search en­gine to check out who au­thors thank, in­clud­ing found­a­tions that sup­por­ted their work.
7. 4.如果信息来源是公共网站，它是否由信誉良好的机构赞助？网站的可靠性取决于其赞助方。通常情况下，由信誉良好的机构赞助和维护的网站是值得信赖的。如果您不熟悉某个网站的赞助方，请进行搜索以了解更多信息。但请注意，有些机构会使用看似客观的名称来掩盖其党派宣传。例如，在20世纪，卷烟制造商创建了烟草研究所（Tobacco Institute），后来更名为烟草研究委员会（Council for Tobacco Research），其使命并非进行真正的烟草研究，而是反对烟草。一些由个人支持的网站是可靠的，但由于任何具备一定技能的人都可以创建网络内容，因此许多（或许是大多数）网站并不可靠。
8. 4. If the source is a pub­lic web­site, is it sponsored by a reput­able or­gan­iz­a­tion? A web­site is only as re­li­able as its spon­sor. You can usu­ally trust one that is sponsored and main­tained by a reput­able or­gan­iz­a­tion. If you are un­fa­mil­iar with a web­site’s spon­sor, do a search to find out more about it. But be aware that some or­gan­iz­a­tions ad­opt names that seem ob­ject­ive as cover for par­tisan ad­vocacy. For ex­ample, in the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, ci­gar­ette man­u­fac­tur­ers cre­ated the To­bacco In­sti­tute, later re­named the Coun­cil for To­bacco Re­search, whose mis­sion was not to en­gage in au­then­tic re­search on to­bacco but to counter it. Some sites sup­por­ted by in­di­vidu­als are re­li­able, but since any­one with cer­tain skills can cre­ate web con­tent, many (per­haps most) are not.
9. 5.信息来源是否最新？你必须使用最新的信息来源，但何为最新取决于具体领域。在计算机科学领域，一篇期刊文章可能几个月就过时了；在社会科学领域，十年左右就差不多是过时的期限了。人文领域的出版物保质期更长：例如，文学或艺术评论可以保持数十年的价值。一般来说，阐述了其他研究人员普遍接受的重要观点或理论的信息来源，其时效性会比其他来源更持久。回应或拓展它。假设大多数教科书都不是最新的。如果您不确定某个资料是否被认为是最新的，请参考该领域资深研究人员的做法。查看一些近期出版的书籍或文章的参考文献列表中的文章日期：一个好的经验法则是，您可以引用与列表中较早的文章一样早的文章（但为了保险起见，最好不要引用最古老的文章）。尽量找到小说、戏剧、信件等原始作品的标准版本——它通常不是最新版本。务必查阅二手或三手资料的最新版本：研究人员经常会改变他们的观点，甚至推翻他们在早期版本中提出的观点。如果某个在线资源最近没有更新，它可能已被弃用，不再可靠。
10. 5. Is the source cur­rent? You must use up-to-date sources, but what counts as cur­rent de­pends on the field. In com­puter sci­ence, a journal art­icle can be out-of-date in months; in the so­cial sci­ences, ten years pushes the limit. Pub­lic­a­tions have a longer shelf life in the hu­man­it­ies: lit­er­ary or art cri­ti­cism, for ex­ample, can re­main rel­ev­ant for dec­ades. In gen­eral, a source that sets out a ma­jor po­s­i­tion or the­ory that other re­search­ers ac­cept will stay cur­rent longer than those that re­spond to or de­velop it. As­sume that most text­books are not cur­rent. If you are un­sure whether a source will be con­sidered cur­rent, take your lead from the prac­tice of es­tab­lished re­search­ers in the field. Look at the dates of art­icles in the works cited lists of a few re­cent books or art­icles in the field: a good rule of thumb is that you can cite works as old as the older ones in that list (but to be safe, per­haps not as old as the old­est). Try to find a stand­ard edi­tion of primary works such as nov­els, plays, let­ters, and so on—it is usu­ally not the most re­cent. Be sure that you con­sult the most re­cent edi­tion of a sec­ond­ary or ter­tiary source: re­search­ers of­ten change their views, even re­ject­ing ones they es­poused in earlier edi­tions. And if an on­line source has not been up­dated re­cently, it may have been aban­doned and may no longer be re­li­able.
11. 6.如果来源是书籍或文章，它是否有注释和/或参考文献？如果没有，就要提高警惕，因为你无法核实来源所声称的任何内容。
12. 6. If the source is a book or art­icle, does it have notes and/or a bib­li­o­graphy? If not, be sus­pi­cious, be­cause you have no way to fol­low up on any­thing that the source claims.
13. 7.如果信息来源是公共网站，它是否包含书目信息？如果一个网站没有标明赞助商和维护者、文章作者以及发布或最后更新时间，你就无法判断该网站的可靠性。
14. 7. If the source is a pub­lic web­site, does it in­clude bib­li­o­graphic data? You can­not judge the re­li­ab­il­ity of a site that does not in­dic­ate who spon­sors and main­tains it, who wrote what’s pos­ted there, and when it was pos­ted or last up­dated.
15. 8.如果信息来源是公共网站，它是否以审慎的态度探讨主题？真正的学术研究需要愿意考虑与自身观点不同的其他观点（参见第九章）。因此，要警惕那些夸大其词、使用侮辱性语言或攻击持不同观点者的网站（以及一般的信息来源）。
16. 8. If the source is a pub­lic web­site, does it ap­proach its topic ju­di­ciously? Au­then­tic re­search pre­sumes a will­ing­ness to con­sider ideas other than one’s own (see chapter 9). So be wary of web­sites (like sources in gen­eral) that make wild claims, use ab­us­ive lan­guage, or at­tack those who hold al­tern­at­ive views.
17. 9.该信息来源是否展现出基本的编辑严谨性？任何信息来源都可能偶尔出现拼写错误，但如果您发现拼写、标点和语法错误明显，表明其不够严谨，则需提高警惕。这种疏忽可能也体现在内容上。例如，如果信息来源包含明显的错误事实，则应谨慎对待。
18. 9. Does the source dis­play a ba­sic level of ed­it­or­ial care? Any source might in­clude an oc­ca­sional typo, but if you find your­self no­ti­cing er­rors of spelling, punc­tu­ation, and gram­mar that sug­gest care­less­ness, be wary. That care­less­ness might ex­tend to the con­tent as well. For ex­ample, if a source in­cludes ob­vi­ous fac­tual er­rors, dis­trust it.
19. 10.如果资料来源是一本书，它是否得到了很好的评价？许多领域都有已发表评论的索引，可以告诉你其他人是如何评价某个资料来源的。
20. 10. If the source is a book, has it been well re­viewed? Many fields have in­dexes to pub­lished re­views that tell you how oth­ers have eval­u­ated a source.
21. 11.该来源是否被其他人频繁引用？你可以通过其他人引用某个来源的频率来大致估计它的影响力。引文索引使这项工作变得很容易（参见3.2.2）。如果你发现如果某个文献被反复引用，可以推断该领域的专家认为它可靠且重要。这类文献通常具有较高的“影响因子”。你应该留意这类文献，并利用它们来明确你的研究方向。但是，文献引用次数少并不意味着它不可靠。有时，专家会忽略或轻视年轻学者或来自弱势群体的学者的观点，但如果他们的研究符合本文所述的其他标准，并且与你的研究相关，那么你当然应该参考并引用他们的研究成果。
22. 11. Has the source been fre­quently cited by oth­ers? You can roughly es­tim­ate how in­flu­en­tial a source has been by how of­ten oth­ers cite it. Cita­tion in­dex­ing makes this easy to do (see 3.2.2). If you find that a source is cited re­peatedly, you can in­fer that ex­perts in the field re­gard it as re­li­able and sig­ni­fic­ant. Such sources are said to have a high “im­pact factor.” You should keep an eye out for such sources and use them to ori­ent your­self in your field of re­search. But just be­cause a source hasn’t been cited of­ten doesn’t mean it’s un­re­li­able. Some­times ex­perts over­look or dis­count the per­spect­ives of younger schol­ars or those from mar­gin­al­ized back­grounds, but if their work meets the other cri­teria de­scribed here and it is rel­ev­ant to your re­search, you should cer­tainly con­sult and cite it your­self.

这些指标并不能保证可靠性。审稿人虽然是专家，但也是人。他们可能会误判作品，或者忽略一些在出版后才被其他人发现的缺陷。因此，不要因为某个来源是由知名研究人员撰写、由知名出版社出版就想当然地认为可以不加批判地阅读。

These in­dic­at­ors do not guar­an­tee re­li­ab­il­ity. Re­view­ers, while ex­perts, are people too. They might mis­judge a work or miss short­com­ings that oth­ers, after pub­lic­a­tion, dis­cover. So don’t as­sume that you can read un­crit­ic­ally just be­cause a source is writ­ten by a reput­able re­searcher and pub­lished by a reput­able press.

4.3.1  寻求创意协议

4.3.1  Look for Cre­at­ive Agree­ment

如果你相信某个消息来源的说法，试着拓展一下：它可能涵盖哪些新案例？它能提供哪些新见解？是否存在消息来源尚未考虑到的佐证？以下是一些通过创造性地达成共识来发现问题的方法。

If you be­lieve what a source claims, try to ex­tend that claim: What new cases might it cover? What new in­sights can it provide? Is there con­firm­ing evid­ence the source hasn’t con­sidered? Here are some ways to find a prob­lem through cre­at­ive agree­ment.

1. 1.提供补充证据。你可以提供新的证据来支持消息来源的说法。

   1. 史密斯用轶事来证明“铆钉女工罗西”在 20 世纪 80 年代重新成为女权主义的象征，但杂志上的图片提供了更好的文献证据。
   2. ▪ 来源用旧证据支持论点，但你提供了新证据。
   3. ▪ 来源提供的证据薄弱，但你提供的证据更有力。
   4. 2.证实未经证实的说法。你可以证明某些信息来源仅仅是假设或推测的事情。
   5. 史密斯建议通过可视化来提高运动表现，但对运动员心理活动的 fMRI 研究提供了证据，表明为什么这是一个好建议。
   6. ▪ 消息来源推测_____________可能是真的，但你提供了证据来证明它是真的。
   7. ▪ 来源假设____________为真，但你可以证明它是正确的。
   8. 3.将主张扩大适用范围。你可以扩展立场。
   9. 史密斯认为，用多种比喻来解释生理过程比只用一种比喻更能帮助医学生理解。这似乎也适用于工程和法律专业的学生。
   10. ▪ 来源正确地将____________应用于一种情况，但你将其应用于新的情况。
   11. ▪ 资料来源声称____________在特定情况下是正确的，但你证明它普遍是正确的。

2. 1. Of­fer ad­di­tional sup­port. You can of­fer new evid­ence to sup­port a source’s claim.

   1. Smith uses an­ec­dotes to show that Rosie the Riv­eter re­sur­faced as a fem­in­ist sym­bol in the 1980s, but im­ages from magazines of­fer bet­ter doc­u­ment­ary evid­ence.
   2. ▪  Source sup­ports a claim with old evid­ence, but you of­fer new evid­ence.
   3. ▪  Source sup­ports a claim with weak evid­ence, but you of­fer stronger evid­ence.
   4. 2. Con­firm un­sup­por­ted claims. You can prove some­thing that a source only as­sumes or spec­u­lates about.
   5. Smith re­com­mends visu­al­iz­a­tion to im­prove sports per­form­ance, but fMRI stud­ies of the men­tal activ­it­ies of ath­letes of­fer evid­ence that shows why that is good ad­vice.
   6. ▪  Source spec­u­lates _____________ might be true, but you of­fer evid­ence to show that it is.
   7. ▪  Source as­sumes ____________ is true, but you can prove it.
   8. 3. Ap­ply a claim more widely. You can ex­tend a po­s­i­tion.
   9. Smith ar­gues that med­ical stu­dents learn physiolo­gical pro­cesses bet­ter when they are ex­plained with many meta­phors rather than with just one. The same seems true for en­gin­eer­ing and law stu­dents.
   10. ▪  Source cor­rectly ap­plies ____________ to one situ­ation, but you ap­ply it to new ones.
   11. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is true in a spe­cific situ­ation, but you show it’s true in gen­eral.

4.3.2  寻找创造性分歧

4.3.2  Look for Cre­at­ive Dis­agree­ment

如果你积极阅读，就不可避免地会发现自己与某些信息来源存在分歧。不要忽视这些分歧，因为它们往往指向新的研究方向。可以留意以下几种类型（此列表并不完整，且某些类型相互重叠）：

If you read act­ively, you’ll in­ev­it­ably find your­self dis­agree­ing with your sources. Don’t brush those dis­agree­ments aside, be­cause they of­ten point to new re­search prob­lems. Look for these types (the list is not ex­haust­ive, and some kinds over­lap):

1. 1.关于分类或定义的分歧。有的资料说某物是一种类型，但它实际上是另一种类型。

   1. 史密斯说涂鸦只是破坏公物，但最好将其理解为一种公共艺术形式。
   2. ▪ 资料来源声称____________是一种____________，但事实并非如此。
   3. ▪ 资料声称____________总是具有____________作为其特征或品质之一，但事实并非如此。
   4. ▪ 来源声称____________是正常的/好的/重要的/有用的/道德的/有趣的，但事实并非如此。
   5. 你可以反过来推翻这些说法以及后面的说法，从而得出相反的结论：
   6. ▪ 虽然有资料称____________不是一种____________，但我可以证明它是。
   7. 2.关于部分与整体的分歧。你可以指出某个信息来源错误地描述了事物各部分之间的关​​系。
   8. 史密斯认为编程与博雅教育无关，但事实上，编程至关重要。
   9. ▪ 消息来源声称____________是____________的一部分，但事实并非如此。
   10. ▪ 资料声称____________的一部分与另一部分以某种方式相关，但事实并非如此。
   11. ▪ 资料声称每个____________都有____________作为其组成部分之一，但事实并非如此。
   12. 3.关于历史或发展的分歧。你可以指出某个资料来源对某个主题的起源或发展存在错误。
   13. 史密斯认为悲剧源于宗教仪式，但事实并非如此。
   14. ▪ 消息来源声称__________正在发生变化，但事实并非如此。
   15. ▪ 资料声称__________起源于__________，但事实并非如此。
   16. ▪ 消息来源声称__________以某种方式发展，但事实并非如此。
   17. 4.关于因果关系的分歧。你可以指出某个信息来源误解了因果关系。尤其要注意因果关系（A导致B）与相关性（A与B同时发生）的混淆。
   18. 史密斯声称学校代金券计划不会减少公立学校的资金，但三个试行此类计划的学区的证据表明，事实并非如此。
   19. ▪ 资料声称____________导致____________，但事实并非如此/它们都是由____________引起的。
   20. ▪ 消息来源声称____________足以导致____________，但事实并非如此。
   21. ▪ 资料来源声称____________只会导致____________，但它也会导致____________。
   22. 5.观点分歧。大多数分歧并不会改变概念框架，但当你反对某种“标准”观点时，你就是在促使他人以新的方式思考。
   23. 史密斯认为广告只有经济功能，但它也可以作为新艺术形式的实验室。
   24. ▪ 来源从________________的角度讨论了________________，但新的背景或观点揭示了新的真理[新的或旧的背景可以是社会的、政治的、哲学的、历史的、经济的、伦理的、性别特定的等等]。
   25. ▪ 资料来源运用理论/价值体系分析________________，但你可以从新的角度分析它，并以新的方式看待它。

2. 1. Dis­agree­ments about clas­si­fic­a­tion or defin­i­tion. A source says some­thing is one kind of thing, but it is an­other.

   1. Smith says that graf­fiti is merely van­dal­ism, but it is bet­ter un­der­stood as a form of pub­lic art.
   2. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is a kind of ____________, but it’s not.
   3. ▪  Source claims that ____________ al­ways has ____________ as one of its fea­tures or qual­it­ies, but it doesn’t.
   4. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is nor­mal/good/sig­ni­fic­ant/use­ful/moral/in­ter­est­ing, but it’s not.
   5. You can re­verse those claims and the ones that fol­low to state the op­pos­ite:
   6. ▪  Though a source says ____________ is not a kind of ____________, I can show that it is.
   7. 2. Dis­agree­ments about parts and wholes. You can show that a source mis­takes how the parts of some­thing are re­lated.
   8. Smith has ar­gued that cod­ing is ir­rel­ev­ant to a lib­eral edu­ca­tion, but, in fact, it is es­sen­tial.
   9. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is a part of ____________, but it’s not.
   10. ▪  Source claims that one part of ____________ relates to an­other in a cer­tain way, but it doesn’t.
   11. ▪  Source claims that every ____________ has ____________ as one of its parts, but it doesn’t.
   12. 3. Dis­agree­ments about his­tory or de­vel­op­ment. You can show that a source mis­takes the ori­gin or de­vel­op­ment of a topic.
   13. Smith ar­gues that tragedy de­veloped from re­li­gious ritual, but it didn’t.
   14. ▪  Source claims that __________ is chan­ging, but it’s not.
   15. ▪  Source claims that __________ ori­gin­ated in __________, but it didn’t.
   16. ▪  Source claims that __________ de­veloped in a cer­tain way, but it didn’t.
   17. 4. Dis­agree­ments about cause and ef­fect. You can show that a source mis­takes a causal re­la­tion­ship. Be es­pe­cially alert to con­fu­sions of caus­a­tion (A res­ults in B) with cor­rel­a­tion (A oc­curs sim­ul­tan­eously with B).
   18. Smith claims that school voucher pro­grams don’t de­crease fund­ing to pub­lic schools, but evid­ence from three school dis­tricts that tried such pro­grams sug­gests that they do.
   19. ▪  Source claims that ____________ causes ____________, but it doesn’t/they are both caused by ____________.
   20. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is suf­fi­cient to cause ____________, but it’s not.
   21. ▪  Source claims that ____________ causes only ____________, but it also causes ____________.
   22. 5. Dis­agree­ments of per­spect­ive. Most dis­agree­ments do not change a con­cep­tual frame­work, but when you op­pose a “stand­ard” view of things, you urge oth­ers to think in a new way.
   23. Smith as­sumes that ad­vert­ising has only an eco­nomic func­tion, but it also serves as a labor­at­ory for new art forms.
   24. ▪  Source dis­cusses ________________ from the point of view of ________________, but a new con­text or point of view re­veals a new truth [the new or old con­text can be so­cial, polit­ical, philo­soph­ical, his­tor­ical, eco­nomic, eth­ical, gender spe­cific, etc.].
   25. ▪  Source ana­lyzes ________________ us­ing the­ory/value sys­tem ________________, but you can ana­lyze it from a new point of view and see it in a new way.

4.4.1  阅读需要回应的论点

4.4.1  Read for Ar­gu­ments to Re­spond To

任何论证只有在承认并回应听众预期的疑问和异议之后，才算完整。你可以在二手资料中找到一些与之相悖的观点。他们提出了哪些与你论点不同的替代方案？他们引用了哪些你必须承认的证据？一些新晋研究者认为，如果提及任何与自己观点相悖的观点，就会削弱自己的论证。事实恰恰相反。当你承认他人的观点时，你不仅表明你了解这些观点，而且表明你认真思考过这些观点，并能自信地回应它们（更多内容请参见第九章）。

No ar­gu­ment is com­plete un­til it ac­know­ledges and re­sponds to its audi­ence’s pre­dict­able ques­tions and dis­agree­ments. You can find some of those com­pet­ing views in sec­ond­ary sources. What al­tern­at­ives to your claims do they of­fer? What evid­ence do they cite that you must ac­know­ledge? Some new re­search­ers think that they weaken their case if they men­tion any views op­pos­ing their own. The op­pos­ite is true. When you ac­know­ledge the views of oth­ers, you show that you not only know those views, but have care­fully con­sidered and can con­fid­ently re­spond to them (for more on this, see chapter 9).

经验丰富的研究者也会利用这些不同的观点来完善自己的观点。只有理解了理性的人为何会持有不同观点，你才能真正理解自己的想法。因此，在寻找资料时，不要只关注那些支持你论点的资料。要留意那些挑战你论点的资料。如果这些资料为你的受众所熟知，那么通过引用它们，你就能提升自己作为研究者的信誉。如果它们并不为人所知，那么你通过引入新的声音和视角，也为你的学术界做出了宝贵的贡献。

Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers also use those com­pet­ing views to im­prove their own. You can’t really un­der­stand what you think un­til you un­der­stand why a ra­tional per­son might think dif­fer­ently. So as you look for sources, don’t look just for those that sup­port your claims. Be alert for sources that chal­lenge them. If those sources are well known to your audi­ence, you in­crease your cred­ib­il­ity as a re­searcher by en­ga­ging them. If they are not, you do a valu­able ser­vice to your re­search com­munity by bring­ing new voices and per­spect­ives into the con­ver­sa­tion.

4.4.2  阅读推理和分析模型

4.4.2  Read for Mod­els of Reas­on­ing and Ana­lysis

你还可以用另一种方式利用二手资料：将其作为推理和分析的范例。如果你从未提出过类似你计划提出的论点，你可以借鉴二手资料中其他论点的模式。你不能直接使用具体的观点（那样就构成抄袭），但借鉴其他资料的论证方式或数据分析方法并不构成抄袭。不必担心将其他资料作为范例会让你的研究显得缺乏原创性。研究论证的方法和推理方式往往缺乏原创性。读者会关注你的问题、论点和证据的原创性。

You can use sec­ond­ary sources in an­other way as well: as mod­els of reas­on­ing and ana­lysis. If you have never made an ar­gu­ment like the one you plan to, you might fol­low the pat­tern of other ar­gu­ments that you find in your sec­ond­ary sources. You can’t use spe­cific ideas (that would be pla­gi­ar­ism), but you do not pla­gi­ar­ize a source when you bor­row its ways of ar­guing or of ana­lyz­ing data. Don’t worry that us­ing a source as a model will make your re­search seem un­ori­ginal. Re­search ar­gu­ments are of­ten un­ori­ginal in their meth­ods and ways of reas­on­ing. Read­ers will look for ori­gin­al­ity in your prob­lem, claim, and evid­ence.

假设你想论证，美国第一个感恩节的故事之所以流传至今，是因为它服务于创造者和传承者的政治利益，也因为它满足了那些不断传颂它的人们的情感需求。你需要提出与你的论点相符的理由和证据，但你可以借鉴其他关于真实或虚构传说的类似论证中提出的问题。如果，例如，如果某个资料表明亚瑟王传说如何影响了英国社会和政治，你也可以用类似的论证来探讨感恩节与美国的关系。你无需引用资料来源，但为了增强论证的可信度，你可以指出该资料的论点与你的论点相似：

Sup­pose you want to ar­gue that the Amer­ican story of the first Thanks­giv­ing thrived be­cause it served the polit­ical in­terests of those who cre­ated it and con­trib­uted to it over time and be­cause it sat­is­fied the emo­tional needs of those who re­peated it. You will need reas­ons and evid­ence unique to your claim, but you can raise the kinds of is­sues that are in sim­ilar ar­gu­ments about other le­gends, real or fic­tional. If, for ex­ample, a source shows how the King Ar­thur le­gend helped to shape Eng­lish so­ci­ety and polit­ics, you might make a sim­ilar ar­gu­ment about Thanks­giv­ing and the United States. You are not ob­liged to cite your model, but to gain cred­ib­il­ity, you might note that it makes an ar­gu­ment sim­ilar to yours:

正如亚瑟王传说帮助塑造了英国鲜明的社会和政治身份一样（Weiman 2019），第一个感恩节的故事也是如此……

Just as the Ar­thur­ian le­gends helped to forge a defin­it­ively Eng­lish so­cial and polit­ical iden­tity (Wei­man 2019), so the story of the first Thanks­giv­ing . . .

4.5.1  阅读数据以用作证据

4.5.1  Read for Data to Use as Evid­ence

初级研究人员通常会查阅二手资料来获取数据，但如果可以，最好还是查阅一手资料。例如，如果某个重要的引文在其原始形式和上下文中可以找到，那么不去查找它就是一种冒险的学术捷径。你不必认同某个资料来源的观点才能使用其数据；事实上，只要数据与你的研究问题相关，即使其论点与你的研究问题无关也无妨。但是，只有当你能够自行判断统计数据的收集和分析是否恰当时，才能使用这些数据。

Be­gin­ning re­search­ers reg­u­larly mine sec­ond­ary sources for data, but if you can, check the primary source. If, for ex­ample, an im­port­ant quo­ta­tion is avail­able in its ori­ginal form and con­text, it’s a risky in­tel­lec­tual short­cut not to look it up. You don’t have to agree with a source to use its data; in fact, its ar­gu­ment does not even have to be rel­ev­ant to your ques­tion, so long as its data are. How­ever, use stat­ist­ical data only if you can judge for your­self whether they were col­lec­ted and ana­lyzed ap­pro­pri­ately.

但需要提醒的是：务必注明所参考的来源。一些初级研究人员认为，当他们使用二手资料中的数据时，应该引用原始的一手资料（也有人持相反观点）。但无论哪种情况，他们都只对了一半。如果你只引用一手资料，就等于暗示你是自己查阅的资料。如果你只引用二手资料，就等于暗示它是你数据的最终来源。正确的做法是，同时引用二手资料和一手资料。例如，如果你在 Wong 的文章中使用了 Anderson 撰写的一手资料作为二手资料，那么你的引用（APA 格式）应该是这样的：(Wong, 1989, p. 45; quoted in Anderson, 2015, p. 19)。

But a word of cau­tion: Al­ways cite the source you con­sult. Some be­gin­ning re­search­ers think that when they use data re­por­ted in a sec­ond­ary source, they should cite the ori­ginal, primary source (and some think the op­pos­ite). But they are only half right in both cases. If you cite just the primary source, you im­ply that you con­sul­ted that source your­self. If you cite just the sec­ond­ary source, you im­ply it is the ul­ti­mate source of your data. In­stead, you should cite both sources. For ex­ample, if you use a sec­ond­ary source writ­ten by An­der­son for primary data in an art­icle by Wong, your cita­tion (in APA style) would look like this: (Wong, 1989, p. 45; quoted in An­der­son, 2015, p. 19).

引用的作用之一是方便读者追溯你的研究路径。在某些学科，尤其是科学领域，研究论文中会包含链接，有时甚至会用链接代替引用。常规引用方式。有些老师也接受甚至更喜欢使用链接而不是引用，因为链接能让他们更轻松高效地查阅学生的参考文献。如果您考虑使用链接代替或补充引用，请先查阅您所在领域的惯例或咨询您的老师。

A func­tion of cita­tions is to al­low read­ers to re­trace your steps, should they want to do so. In some dis­cip­lines, es­pe­cially in the sci­ences, re­search pub­lic­a­tions in­clude links as well as or even in­stead of con­ven­tional cita­tions. Some teach­ers also ac­cept or even prefer links in­stead of cita­tions be­cause those links al­low them to re­view their stu­dents’ sources eas­ily and ef­fi­ciently. If you are con­sid­er­ing us­ing links in­stead of or in ad­di­tion to cita­tions, check the con­ven­tions of your field or with your teacher.

4.5.2  阅读以查找可作为依据的主张

4.5.2  Read for Claims to Use as Sup­port

研究人员经常利用二手资料中的结果来强化自己的论点。如果你发现一个有用的论断，可以引用它来支持自己的观点，尤其是在该论断已被充分论证并被广泛接受的情况下。但许多论断仅仅表明另一位研究人员与你的观点一致。要将此类论断作为证据，你不仅需要报告来源的结论，还需要报告其推理过程和支撑证据。换句话说，你必须让读者有机会自行判断你选择引用的他人证据的相关性和可靠性。

Re­search­ers of­ten use the res­ults they find in sec­ond­ary sources to bol­ster their own ar­gu­ments. If you find a use­ful claim, you can cite it to sup­port your own, es­pe­cially if it has been well sup­por­ted and widely ac­cep­ted. But many claims show noth­ing more than that an­other re­searcher agrees with you. To use such claims as evid­ence, you have to re­port not only the con­clu­sion of the source but its reas­on­ing and sup­port­ing evid­ence as well. In other words, you have to give your audi­ence the op­por­tun­ity to judge for them­selves the rel­ev­ance and the re­li­ab­il­ity of the evid­ence you choose to use from oth­ers.

4.6.1  用纸笔做笔记

4.6.1  Tak­ing Notes on Pa­per

多年前，记录资料的标准方法是创建一个索引卡片文件：

Years ago, the stand­ard way to take notes on sources was to cre­ate a file of in­dex cards:

左上角是作者、简短标题和页码。右上角是关键词，方便研究人员将笔记分类和排序。卡片正文总结资料来源，记录直接引语（如适用），并包含研究人员的问题和解答。这样的卡片或许看起来有些过时，但它提供了一个高效的笔记模板：

At the top left is the au­thor, short title, and page num­ber(s). At the top right are keywords that let the re­searcher sort and re-sort notes into dif­fer­ent cat­egor­ies and or­ders. The body of the card sum­mar­izes the source, re­cords a dir­ect quo­ta­tion (where ap­pro­pri­ate), and in­cludes the re­searcher’s ques­tions and re­sponses. A card like this may seem old-fash­ioned, but it provides a tem­plate for ef­fi­cient note-tak­ing:

• ▪ 记录每个来源的完整书目信息，以便正确引用并轻松再次找到它。
• ▪  Re­cord com­plete bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion for each source so that you can cite it prop­erly and find it again eas­ily.
• ▪ 即使来自同一来源，也要对不同主题进行单独记录。
• ▪  Sep­ar­ate notes on dif­fer­ent top­ics, even if they come from the same source.
• ▪ 务必确保笔记准确无误，因为之后需要用到。如果要引用多行文字，请复制或保存段落或整个文档。注意转录错误：手抄或打字引用时，即使你自认为很仔细，也很容易出错。（这种转录的风险也正是其优势所在——当你真正手写或打字引用，而不是简单地复制粘贴时，你必须认真思考。）
• ▪  Make sure your notes are ac­cur­ate be­cause you need to be able to rely on them later. If you want to quote more than a few lines, copy or save the pas­sage or the whole doc­u­ment. Be alert for tran­scrip­tion er­rors: when hand-copy­ing or typ­ing out quo­ta­tions, it is sur­pris­ingly easy to al­ter their word­ing, even when you think you are be­ing care­ful. (This risk in tran­scrip­tion is tied to its be­ne­fit—when you ac­tu­ally write or type out a quo­ta­tion, rather than just copy­ing-and-past­ing it, you have to think about it.)
• ▪ 不仅要记录来源的说法，还要记录你发现的任何数据或佐证。
• ▪  Re­cord not only the source’s claim but any data or sup­port you find in­ter­est­ing.
• ▪ 记录下你的赞同、反对、推测、疑问等等。你是否发现原文论证中存在任何复杂之处或矛盾之处？原文是否提出了任何问题？这将促使你超越简单的记录阅读内容。
• ▪  Note your agree­ments, dis­agree­ments, spec­u­la­tions, ques­tions, and so on. Do you see any com­plic­a­tions or con­tra­dic­tions in the source’s ar­gu­ment? Did the source raise any ques­tions? That will en­cour­age you to do more than simply re­cord the con­tent of what you read.
• ▪  务必清晰区分：(1) 引自原文的内容；(2) 转述或总结原文的内容；(3) 你自己的想法。如果用纸笔书写，请使用标题、括号或不同颜色的墨水来区分这些不同类型的笔记。如果使用电脑或在线记笔记，请使用不同的字体或颜色。你必须明确区分自己的文字和原文，因为两者很容易混淆。
• ▪  Clearly dis­tin­guish (1) what you quote from a source, (2) what you para­phrase or sum­mar­ize from a source, and (3) your own thoughts. If you are writ­ing on pa­per, use head­ings or brack­ets or dif­fer­ent col­ors of ink to dif­fer­en­ti­ate these dif­fer­ent kinds of note. If you are us­ing a com­puter or tak­ing notes on­line, use dif­fer­ent fonts or dif­fer­ent col­ors of type. You must un­am­bigu­ously dis­tin­guish your own words from those of your sources be­cause it is so easy to con­fuse the two.

你或许会疑惑，既然可以直接用电子设备记录笔记，为什么还要费劲用纸笔呢？纸质笔记虽然存储、备份、索引和检索起来都很麻烦，但仍然有其用武之地。例如，笔记本或索引卡片价格低廉且便于携带，而且纸张有时能胜任科技无法企及的工作——有些档案馆仍然要求读者用纸笔做笔记。一些研究人员继续依赖纸质笔记的主要原因在于，它们有助于思考。由于不可能把所有内容都写下来，使用纸张会迫使你思考哪些内容最为重要。同样，如果你的笔记写在卡片或纸张上，你可以将它们分组、打乱顺序，或者摊放在桌子、台面甚至地板上。而且，记录笔记的过程本身不仅能帮助你记住笔记的内容，还能帮助你发现其中的联系，并发展出自己的想法。

Why, you might won­der, would any­one bother with pa­per notes when they could just type their notes into a device? As cum­ber­some as pa­per notes can be to store, back up, in­dex, and ac­cess, they still have their uses. For ex­ample, a note­book or pack of in­dex cards is cheap and port­able, and pa­per can some­times go where tech­no­logy can­not—some archives still re­quire pat­rons to take notes with pa­per and pen­cil. The main reason some re­search­ers con­tinue to rely on pa­per notes is that they help with think­ing. Since you can’t write out everything, us­ing pa­per forces you to think about what is most im­port­ant. Like­wise, if your notes are on cards or sheets of pa­per, you can group them, shuffle them, or lay them out on a desk, a table, or even the floor. And the very act of writ­ing out your notes can help you not only re­mem­ber what is in them but also see con­nec­tions and de­velop your own ideas.

然而，如今很少有研究人员完全依赖纸质笔记。大多数人也会同时使用电子笔记，他们虽然会在纸上思考，但会利用电子笔记来确保引文、参考文献和注释的准确性。

Still, very few re­search­ers today rely on pa­per notes alone. Most take notes elec­tron­ic­ally as well, think­ing on pa­per but us­ing elec­tronic notes to en­sure the ac­cur­acy of their quo­ta­tions, ref­er­ences, and cita­tions.

4.6.2  电子笔记

4.6.2  Tak­ing Notes Elec­tron­ic­ally

当您使用电脑、平板电脑、手机或其他电子设备做笔记时，您有多种选择：

When you take notes us­ing a com­puter, tab­let, phone, or other elec­tronic device, you have sev­eral op­tions:

• 您可以使用 Word 或 Google Docs 等程序。为每个来源创建一个单独的文件（或至少单独一页），并确保为了明确区分自己的文字和来源文字，这类程序虽然易于使用，但也限制了你对笔记进行索引、整理、排序和搜索的能力。尤其对于篇幅较长或较为复杂的项目，你可能需要考虑其他方案。
• ▪  You can use a pro­gram like Word or Google Docs. Cre­ate a sep­ar­ate file (or at least a sep­ar­ate page) for each source, and be sure to un­am­bigu­ously dis­tin­guish your own words from those of your source. Such pro­grams are easy to use, but they also limit your abil­ity to in­dex, or­gan­ize, sort, and search your notes. For long or com­plex pro­jects es­pe­cially, you may want to con­sider other op­tions.
• 您可以使用专门的笔记应用程序来创建和整理笔记。这类应用程序可以帮助您索引、排序和访问笔记，但由于它们有时使用专有格式，因此可能会使您难以导出笔记或将其与其他程序一起使用。
• ▪  You can use a ded­ic­ated note-tak­ing ap­plic­a­tion to cre­ate and or­gan­ize your notes. Such ap­plic­a­tions can help you to in­dex, sort, and ac­cess your notes, but since they some­times use pro­pri­et­ary formats, they can some­times make it dif­fi­cult for you to ex­port your notes or use them with other pro­grams.
• 您可以使用功能齐全的文献管理系统。除了帮助您做笔记外，这些程序通常还能直接从在线图书馆目录和数据库中提取信息，并在您写作时自动格式化和更新您的引文和参考文献。有些系统甚至会将您所有参考文献的完整电子版存储在参考文献管理系统中，帮助您构建和维护个人参考文献库。但与笔记应用程序一样，这些系统有时也使用专有格式——您需要学习如何使用它们。
• ▪  You can use a full-fea­tured cita­tion-man­age­ment sys­tem. In ad­di­tion to help­ing you make your notes, these pro­grams can of­ten pull in­form­a­tion dir­ectly from on­line lib­rary cata­logs and data­bases, and they can format and up­date your cita­tions and bib­li­o­graph­ies when you write. Some will even store full elec­tronic cop­ies of your sources within the ref­er­ence-man­age­ment sys­tem, help­ing you build and main­tain your per­sonal lib­rary of sources. But like note-tak­ing ap­plic­a­tions, these sys­tems some­times use pro­pri­et­ary formats—and you have to learn to use them.

这三种类型的应用程序均提供网页版，这意味着应用程序和您的笔记并非存储在您自己的计算机上，而是存储在云端。这可以保护您的数据免遭意外丢失或损坏，并有助于您与其他研究人员共享信息和协作。

All three types of ap­plic­a­tion are also avail­able in web-based ver­sions, mean­ing that the ap­plic­a­tion and your notes reside not on your own com­puter but in the cloud. This pro­tects your data from in­ad­vert­ent loss or cor­rup­tion and can help you share in­form­a­tion and col­lab­or­ate with other re­search­ers.

但无论你使用什么技术，都必须考虑一些基本问题：

But whatever tech­no­logy you use, you have to con­sider some ba­sic ques­tions:

• ▪ 你打算如何保持条理清晰？例如，如果你计划为每个资料来源创建一个单独的文档，那么你需要一个文件命名和存储系统。如果没有这样的系统，很容易在电脑或设备上“丢失”你的笔记。
• ▪  How will you stay or­gan­ized? For ex­ample, if you plan to cre­ate a sep­ar­ate doc­u­ment for each source, you then need a sys­tem for nam­ing and stor­ing your files. Without such a sys­tem, it is very easy to “lose” your notes on your com­puter or device.
• ▪ 你将如何使用你的笔记？你可能会决定针对小型项目和大型项目、离散项目和持续性项目、个人项目和协作项目采用不同的笔记存储方式。
• ▪  How will you use your notes? You may de­cide to store your notes dif­fer­ently for small pro­jects and large ones, for dis­crete pro­jects and on­go­ing ones, for in­di­vidual pro­jects and col­lab­or­at­ive ones.
• ▪ 你的学校或图书馆提供哪些应用程序？许多学校和图书馆都提供笔记软件或参考资料管理软件。这些系统面向教职员工、学生和用户，有时还会将这些工具与他们的目录集成在一起。如果您可以使用此类资源，请考虑使用它们。
• ▪  What ap­plic­a­tions are avail­able through your school or lib­rary? Many schools and lib­rar­ies of­fer note-tak­ing or ref­er­ence-man­age­ment sys­tems to fac­ulty, stu­dents, and pat­rons, some­times in­teg­rat­ing these tools with their cata­logs. If you have ac­cess to such re­sources, con­sider us­ing them.
• ▪ 您打算如何备份笔记？无论您选择如何记录和整理笔记，请确保在出现意外情况时能够恢复它们：例如，咖啡洒在笔记本电脑上、手机丢失、文件与新版笔记应用不兼容、地下室的老鼠啃坏了索引卡片盒等等。我们建议您将笔记存储在云端，或者至少备份到云端。备份软件可以自动完成这些操作。
• ▪  How will you back up your notes? How­ever you de­cide to take and or­gan­ize your notes, make sure you can re­cover them if some­thing goes wrong: you spill cof­fee on your laptop, you lose your phone, your files are in­com­pat­ible with the new ver­sion of your note-tak­ing app, mice in your base­ment chew through your box of in­dex cards. Our sug­ges­tion is that you store your notes in, or at least back them up to, the cloud. Backup soft­ware can do this for you auto­mat­ic­ally.
• 最重要的是：哪种方法最适合你自己的写作、思考和工作方式？随着你写作和研究能力的提升，你会逐渐形成一套独特的个人工作方法。其他人可能会觉得这些方法繁琐、令人困惑，甚至难以理解。但这都没关系。记住，你的目标不是创建一套详尽的笔记，而是高效、有条理地进行研究和写作。如果一款软件不能帮助你做到这一点，那么对你来说，它就毫无用处。
• ▪  Most im­port­ant: What ap­proach best suits your own ways of writ­ing, think­ing, and work­ing? As you grow as a writer and re­searcher, you will de­velop ways of work­ing that are par­tic­u­lar to you. Oth­ers may find them cum­ber­some or con­fus­ing or even in­com­pre­hens­ible. No mat­ter. Re­mem­ber that your goal is not to cre­ate an elab­or­ate set of notes but to re­search and write cap­ably and in­tel­li­gently. If a piece of soft­ware doesn’t help you do that, it isn’t use­ful—to you.

4.6.3  决定引用、释义还是概括

4.6.3  De­cid­ing Whether to Quote, Para­phrase, or Sum­mar­ize

如果你能复印、扫描、下载或剪切粘贴资料来源，或者你知道写作时可以随时在线访问，那么你就可以把注意力从忠实还原原文转移到自己对资料的理解上。这是一个巨大的优势。总结资料来源，这也有助于你理解它，并记下你可能想要引用或转述的段落。同时，也要记录你对资料来源的回应。你发现自己在哪些方面赞同它的观点？哪些方面不赞同？你是否想说“是的，但是……”？

If you can pho­to­copy, scan, down­load, or cut-and-paste your source, or you know that you can ac­cess it on­line when you write, you can fo­cus less on pre­serving its ex­act words than on your own en­gage­ment with it. That’s a great ad­vant­age. Sum­mar­ize the source, which will also help you un­der­stand it, and note pas­sages you may want to quote or para­phrase when you write. Note also your own re­sponses to the source. Where did you find your­self agree­ing with it? Dis­agree­ing? Want­ing to say, Yes, but . . . ?

如果你无法保存完整的资料来源，也不确定以后是否还能访问，那么你将面临一个更艰难的选择：哪些部分需要完整记录（例如转录、剪切粘贴、截图或拍照），哪些部分需要概括或转述。在这种情况下，你必须考虑以后如何使用这些笔记。你的研究领域也会影响你的选择：人文学科的研究人员在写作时通常引用原文；社会科学家和自然科学家则通常采用转述和概括的方式（参见第12章）。

If you can’t pre­serve your en­tire source and don’t know whether you will be able to ac­cess it later, you have a tougher choice: what parts of the source to re­cord ex­actly (by tran­scrib­ing them, cut­ting-and-past­ing, tak­ing a screen­shot, or snap­ping a photo) and what parts to sum­mar­ize or para­phrase. In this situ­ation, you have to con­sider how you plan to use your notes later. Your field will af­fect your choices: When they write, re­search­ers in the hu­man­it­ies quote most of­ten; so­cial and nat­ural sci­ent­ists usu­ally para­phrase and sum­mar­ize (see chapter 12).

• ▪ 当您只需要了解一段文字、一个章节甚至整篇文章或一本书的要点时，可以使用摘要。摘要有助于了解与研究项目相关但并非直接相关的背景信息或观点。但请注意，摘要本身并不能作为有效的证据。
• ▪  Sum­mar­ize when you need only the point of a pas­sage, sec­tion, or even a whole art­icle or book. Sum­mary is use­ful for con­text or views that are re­lated but not spe­cific­ally rel­ev­ant to your re­search pro­ject. A sum­mary of a source never serves as good evid­ence.
• ▪ 当一段文字的具体用词不如其含义重要时，可以使用释义。释义并非仅仅改变一两个词，而是要用自己的语言替换原文的大部分词语和措辞。释义的证据效力永远不如直接引用。
• ▪  Para­phrase when the spe­cific words of a pas­sage are less im­port­ant than its mean­ing. Para­phras­ing doesn’t mean chan­ging just a word or two. You must re­place most of the words and phras­ing of the ori­ginal with your own. A para­phrase is never as good evid­ence as a dir­ect quo­ta­tion.
• ▪ 为实现以下目的，请记录准确的报价：
• ▪  Re­cord ex­act quo­ta­tions for these pur­poses:
• ——引用的文字是支持你论点的证据。例如，如果你声称不同群体对重新命名以奴隶主命名的建筑物的反应不同，你就应该引用不同新闻来源的原文。如果你只需要了解他们的总体观点，则可以进行意译。
• —The quoted words are evid­ence that backs up your reas­ons. If, for ex­ample, you claim that dif­fer­ent groups re­spond dif­fer­ently to re­nam­ing build­ings named for en­slavers, you would quote ex­act words from dif­fer­ent news sources. You would para­phrase them if you needed only their gen­eral sen­ti­ments.
• —这些话出自你打算依赖或质疑的权威人士之口。
• —The words are from an au­thor­ity you plan to rely on or chal­lenge.
• —这些话非常新颖独特，或者极具说服力，以至于这段引文可以作为你接下来讨论的框架。
• —The words are strik­ingly ori­ginal or so com­pel­ling that the quo­ta­tion can frame the rest of your dis­cus­sion.
• —消息来源提出了你不同意的观点，为了公平起见，你想准确地陈述该观点。
• —The source makes a claim that you dis­agree with, and to be fair you want to state that claim ex­actly.

千万不要为了方便而缩写引语，以为之后就能准确地还原原文。你做不到。而且，如果你引用错误，就会损害你的信誉。

Never ab­bre­vi­ate a quo­ta­tion think­ing you can ac­cur­ately re­con­struct it later. You can’t. And if you mis­quote, you will un­der­mine your cred­ib­il­ity.

4.6.4  正确把握语境

4.6.4  Get­ting the Con­text Right

你不可能记录所有内容，但必须记录足够的信息，以确保准确捕捉到资料的含义。在使用资料时，不仅要记录他们说了什么，还要记录他们是如何运用这些信息的。

You can’t re­cord everything, but you have to re­cord enough to en­sure that you ac­cur­ately cap­ture the source’s mean­ing. As you use ma­ter­ial from your sources, re­cord not just what they say but how they use the in­form­a­tion.

1. 1.引用、转述或概括时，务必注意语境。你无法完全避免断章取义，因为你不可能引用原文的全部内容。因此，当你撰写转述、概括或复制引文时，务必将其置于最重要的语境中——即你对原文的理解。当你注意到重要的论点或结论，记录作者的推理过程：

   1. 注意：巴托利（第 123 页）：战争是由 Z 引起的。
   2. 注意：巴托利（第 123 页）：战争是由 X、Y 和 Z 引起的。
   3. 但是：巴托利：战争是由 X、Y 和 Z 引起的（第 123 页）。但最重要的原因是 Z（第 123 页），原因有二：首先，……（第 124-126 页）；其次，……（第 126 页）。
   4. 即使你只关心结论，如果你记录下作者得出结论的过程，你也能更准确地使用它。
   5. 2.记录论点时，请注意它在原文中的作用。它是主要论点？次要论点？限定条件或让步？通过记录这些区别，您可以避免此类错误：
   6. 琼斯原文 ： “研究人员认识到，肺癌的病因有很多，包括遗传倾向和接触石棉、氡、细颗粒物等环境因素。但研究过相关数据的人都一致认为，吸烟是肺癌的主要病因。”
   7. 关于 琼斯的误导性说明：吸烟只是导致肺癌的众多原因之一。例如，琼斯声称“肺癌的病因有很多，包括遗传倾向和接触石棉、氡和细颗粒物等环境因素。”
   8. 琼斯根本没有提出这一点。她只是先让步，引出她自己想要表达的观点。任何故意以这种方式歪曲事实的人都违反了基本的真相准则。但是，如果你只关注消息来源的措辞，而忽略了它们在论证中的作用，就可能无意中犯下这样的错误。
   9. 为避免此类错误，应区分论证的核心陈述与作者承认但淡化的限定或让步。除非你是在“反其道而行之”地解读作者的意图——例如，为了揭露其隐藏的倾向——否则不要将来源中的次要方面当作主要方面来报道，更不要将其当作来源的全部论点。
   10. 3.记录声明的范围和置信度。不要让声明看起来比实际情况更确定或影响范围更广。第二句话没有准确或公正地转述第一句话：
   11. 原文：一项关于风险感知的研究（Clark，2008）表明，高风险赌博与儿童脑震荡之间存在联系。
   12. 误导性说明 ：克拉克（2008 年）表示，儿童脑震荡会导致高风险赌博。
   13. 4.不要将对其他作者观点的总结误认为是作者自身的总结。有些作者并未明确指出他们何时在总结他人的论点，因此很容易将他们的观点理解为他们试图反驳的内容，而非他们实际的观点。
   14. 5.注意不同信息来源的共识与分歧所在。信息来源达成共识的 方式和原因与它们达成共识本身同样重要。同样，信息来源也可能因为对同一证据的解读不同或解决问题的方法不同而产生分歧。盲目相信任何一位研究者对某个问题的观点都是有风险的。不加批判地总结他人的研究成果并非真正的“研究”。即使你的信息来源广受信赖，也要谨慎。如果你至少参考两个信息来源，通常会发现它们并非完全一致，而这正是你开展独立研究的起点。哪个论证更有说服力？哪个更尊重证据？事实上，这本身就是一个研究问题：我们应该相信谁？

2. 1. When you quote, para­phrase, or sum­mar­ize, be care­ful about con­text. You can­not en­tirely avoid quot­ing out of con­text, be­cause you can­not quote all of an ori­ginal. So when you draft a para­phrase or sum­mary or copy a quo­ta­tion, do so within the con­text that mat­ters most—that of your own grasp of the ori­ginal. When you note an im­port­ant ar­gu­ment or con­clu­sion, re­cord the au­thor’s line of reas­on­ing:

   1. NOT: Bar­to­lli (p. 123): The war was caused by Z.
   2. NOT: Bar­to­lli (p. 123): The war was caused by X, Y, and Z.
   3. BUT: Bar­to­lli: The war was caused by X, Y, and Z (p. 123). But the most im­port­ant cause was Z (p. 123), for two reas­ons: first, . . . (pp. 124–26); second, . . . (p. 126).
   4. Even if you care only about a con­clu­sion, you will use it more ac­cur­ately if you re­cord how an au­thor reached it.
   5. 2. When you re­cord a claim, note its role in the ori­ginal. Is it a main point? A minor point? A qual­i­fic­a­tion or con­ces­sion? By not­ing these dis­tinc­tions, you avoid this kind of mis­take:
   6. ORI­GINAL BY JONES: “Re­search­ers re­cog­nize that lung can­cer has a num­ber of causes, in­clud­ing ge­netic pre­dis­pos­i­tion and ex­pos­ure to en­vir­on­mental factors such as as­bes­tos, radon, and fine par­tic­u­lates. But no one who has stud­ied the data doubts that lung can­cer’s lead­ing cause is smoking.”
   7. MIS­LEAD­ING NOTE ABOUT JONES: Smoking is just one cause of lung can­cer among many. Jones, for ex­ample, claims that “lung can­cer has a num­ber of causes, in­clud­ing ge­netic pre­dis­pos­i­tion and ex­pos­ure to en­vir­on­mental factors such as as­bes­tos, radon, and fine par­tic­u­lates.”
   8. Jones did not make that point at all. She con­ceded a point to set up the point she wanted to make. Any­one who de­lib­er­ately mis­re­ports in this way vi­ol­ates ba­sic stand­ards of truth. But you can make such a mis­take in­ad­vert­ently if you note only a source’s words and not their role in an ar­gu­ment.
   9. To avoid such mis­takes, dis­tin­guish state­ments that are cent­ral to an ar­gu­ment from qual­i­fic­a­tions or con­ces­sions that the au­thor ac­know­ledges but down­plays. Un­less you are read­ing “against the grain” of the writer’s in­ten­tion—to ex­pose hid­den tend­en­cies, for ex­ample—do not re­port minor as­pects of a source as though they were ma­jor or, worse, as if they were the source’s whole point.
   10. 3. Re­cord the scope and con­fid­ence of a claim. Don’t make a claim seem more cer­tain or far-reach­ing than it is. The second sen­tence doesn’t ac­cur­ately or fairly re­port the first:
   11. ORI­GINAL: One study on the per­cep­tion of risk (Clark, 2008) sug­gests a link between high-stakes gambling and child­hood con­cus­sions.
   12. MIS­LEAD­ING NOTE: Clark (2008) says child­hood con­cus­sions cause high-stakes gambling.
   13. 4. Don’t mis­take a sum­mary of an­other writer’s views for those of an au­thor sum­mar­iz­ing them. Some writers do not clearly in­dic­ate when they sum­mar­ize an­other’s ar­gu­ment, so it is easy to quote them as say­ing what they set out to dis­prove rather than what they in fact be­lieve.
   14. 5. Note why sources agree and dis­agree. How and why sources agree is as im­port­ant as the fact that they do. In the same way, sources might dis­agree be­cause they in­ter­pret the same evid­ence dif­fer­ently or take dif­fer­ent ap­proaches to the prob­lem. It is risky to at­tach your­self to what any one re­searcher says about an is­sue. It is not “re­search” when you un­crit­ic­ally sum­mar­ize an­other’s work. Even if your source is uni­ver­sally trus­ted, be care­ful. If you rely on at least two sources, you’ll usu­ally find that they do not agree en­tirely, and that is where your own re­search can be­gin. Which has the bet­ter ar­gu­ment? Which bet­ter re­spects the evid­ence? In fact, you have a re­search prob­lem right there: Whom should we be­lieve?

4.7.1  边注

4.7.1  Mar­ginal An­nota­tions

除了在纸上或电脑上做笔记之外，您还可以直接对许多纸质或电子版资料进行注释。注释是一种通过评论、提问和与其他资料的交叉引用来标记资料的技术。在文本资料的页边空白处进行注释通常比简单地高亮显示更有效，因为它能更清晰地展现资料与您项目的相关性。

As an al­tern­at­ive to tak­ing notes on pa­per or a com­puter, you can dir­ectly an­not­ate many sources in print or di­gital form. An­nota­tion is a tech­nique of mark­ing up a source through com­ments, ques­tions, and cross-ref­er­ences to other sources. An­not­at­ing in the mar­gins of tex­tual sources is gen­er­ally more pro­duct­ive than simply high­light­ing be­cause it brings into re­lief the rel­ev­ance of a source to your pro­ject.

在注释过程中，您可以记录本章讨论的积极阅读实践。您可以使用注释来识别资料的论点和关键词，或者通过质疑（或扩展）资料的理由、证据和论证来“论证”资料（参见第三部分）。随着项目的推进，您可以返回到已注释的资料，回顾您之前的思考。

In an­not­at­ing, you doc­u­ment the act­ive read­ing prac­tices dis­cussed in this chapter. You can use an­nota­tions to identify a source’s claims and keywords or “ar­gue” with a source by ques­tion­ing (or ex­tend­ing) its reas­ons, evid­ence, and war­rants (see part III). As your pro­ject de­vel­ops, you can re­turn to an an­not­ated source to see what you were think­ing earlier.

当然，并非所有资源都同样适合注释。你不能在图书馆书籍或其他非自有文本的页边空白处做笔记。许多文本只能（或最方便地）以数字形式获取。不过幸运的是，有一些数字注释工具可以让你在数字环境中记录阅读内容。你可以使用这些工具注释各种资源，包括文本、图像等。录音、视频，并将您的回复与各种来源关联起来，创建一个可搜索的数据库，以便日后参考。

Of course, not every source is equally avail­able for an­nota­tion. You can’t write in the mar­gins of lib­rary books or other texts you do not own. Many texts are ac­cess­ible only (or most con­veni­ently) in di­gital form. For­tu­nately, how­ever, there are di­gital an­nota­tion tools that let you doc­u­ment your read­ing in di­gital en­vir­on­ments. You can use these tools to an­not­ate a wide range of sources, in­clud­ing texts, im­ages, re­cord­ings, and video, and to link your re­sponses to vari­ous sources to cre­ate a search­able data­base for later ref­er­ence.

4.7.2  注释书目

4.7.2  An­not­ated Bib­li­o­graphy

一种利用文献资料的方法是制作带注释的书目——一份列出所有可能文献的清单，每条文献都附有引文和简要概述。（关于引文的更多信息，请参见第12章。）根据创建注释的目的，注释可以分为多种类型。对于研究项目而言，带注释的书目能够提供一系列文献及其在论证中可能发挥的作用的概览。通常，编写带注释的书目是研究过程中的一个独立阶段，它使您（以及您的老师）有机会反思所收集的文献。每条注释都是一次评估文献可信度、总结其论点并解释其与项目相关性的机会。

One ap­proach to en­ga­ging sources is an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy—a list of pos­sible sources fea­tur­ing a cita­tion and brief sum­mary for each source. (For more on cita­tions, see chapter 12.) There are mul­tiple types of an­nota­tions based on the motive for cre­at­ing them. For a re­search pro­ject, an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy of­fers a bird’s-eye view of a range of sources and the roles they might play in your ar­gu­ment. Of­ten the as­sem­bling of an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy is a dis­tinct stage in a re­search pro­cess, one that al­lows you (and your teacher) to re­flect on the sources you have col­lec­ted. Each an­nota­tion is an op­por­tun­ity to eval­u­ate the cred­ib­il­ity of a source, sum­mar­ize its ar­gu­ment, and ex­plain its rel­ev­ance to your pro­ject.

编制带注释的书目可以帮助你评估你的研究是否彻底，以及你对收集到的资料的运用是否深入。

Com­pil­ing an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy can help you gauge how thor­oughly you have con­duc­ted your re­search and how deeply you have en­gaged the sources you have col­lec­ted.

4.7.3  用于对笔记进行分类和整理的关键词

4.7.3  Keywords That Cat­egor­ize Your Notes for Sort­ing

最后，一项概念性挑战：在做笔记时，请将每条笔记归类到两个或多个关键词下（参见第 85 页笔记卡的右上角）。不要机械地使用原文中的词语；要根据笔记对你问题的启示，以及超越其具体内容的更宏观的概念来对其进行分类。对相关的笔记使用相同的标签或关键词；不要为每条新笔记都创建一个新的标签或关键词。

Fi­nally, a con­cep­tu­ally chal­len­ging task: as you take notes, cat­egor­ize each one un­der two or more keywords (see the up­per-right corner of the note card on p. 85). Don’t mech­an­ic­ally use words from the source; cat­egor­ize the note by what it im­plies for your ques­tion, by a gen­eral idea lar­ger than its spe­cific con­tent. Use the same tags or keywords for re­lated notes; don’t cre­ate a new one for every new note.

这一步至关重要，因为它能迫使你找出笔记的核心思想。如果你用电子设备做笔记，关键词可以让你通过一次查找命令就将相关的笔记归类。如果你使用多个关键词，就可以用不同的方式重新组合笔记，从而发现新的关联（这在你感觉思路混乱时尤为重要）。

This step is cru­cial be­cause it forces you to find the cent­ral ideas in a note. If you take notes elec­tron­ic­ally, the keywords let you in­stantly group re­lated notes with a single Find com­mand. If you use more than one keyword, you can re­com­bine your notes in dif­fer­ent ways to dis­cover new re­la­tion­ships (es­pe­cially im­port­ant when you feel you are spin­ning your wheels).

▶ 小贴士：如何应对不确定时刻

▶ Quick Tip: Man­aging Mo­ments of Un­cer­tainty

随着项目深入，你可能会遇到这样的时刻：所有事情似乎都混成一团，让人束手无策。这种情况通常发生在你积累笔记的速度超过了整理的速度时。这样的时刻固然令人焦虑，但也可能预示着你即将获得新的洞见或发现。

As you get deeper into your pro­ject, you may ex­per­i­ence a mo­ment when everything seems to run to­gether into a hope­less muddle. That usu­ally hap­pens when you ac­cu­mu­late notes faster than you can sort them. Such mo­ments can be stress­ful, but they can also be a sign that you are on the verge of a new in­sight or dis­cov­ery.

你可以抓住一切机会整理和总结你收集到的信息，边做边写，并不断回到核心问题上，从而最大限度地减少焦虑：我提出的问题是什么？我提出的难题是什么？反复练习这个公式：我正在研究 X，以了解更多关于 Y 的信息，这样我的读者就能更好地理解 Z。定期记录这些问题不仅能帮助你保持专注，还能帮助你思考。

You can min­im­ize anxi­ety by tak­ing every op­por­tun­ity to or­gan­ize and sum­mar­ize what you have gathered by writ­ing as you go and by re­turn­ing to the cent­ral ques­tions: What ques­tion am I ask­ing? What prob­lem am I pos­ing? Keep re­hears­ing that for­mula, I am work­ing on X to learn more about Y, so that my audi­ence can bet­ter un­der­stand Z. Writ­ing reg­u­larly about these ques­tions does more than help you stay fo­cused; it also helps you think.

你还可以向朋友、同学、老师——任何愿意倾听你想法但又能提出批评意见的人——寻求帮助。解释你所学到的知识如何与你的问题相关，以及如何帮助你解决问题。问问他们：“这样说得通吗？我是否遗漏了什么重要的信息？你们还想知道什么？”他们的反馈会让你受益匪浅，但更重要的是，向非专业人士解释你的想法本身就会让你受益匪浅。

You can also turn to friends, class­mates, teach­ers—any­one who will serve as a sym­path­etic but crit­ical audi­ence. Ex­plain how what you have learned bears on your ques­tion and helps you solve your prob­lem. Ask them, Does this make sense? Am I miss­ing any­thing im­port­ant? What else would you like to know? You will profit from their re­ac­tions, but even more from the mere act of ex­plain­ing your ideas to non-spe­cial­ists.

5.2.1  用理由支持主张

5.2.1  Sup­port Claims with Reas­ons

第一种论据，即理由，是指引导听众接受你的观点的陈述。我们通常会在理由前加上“因为” ：

The first kind of sup­port, a reason, is a state­ment that leads an audi­ence to ac­cept your claim. We of­ten join a reason to a claim with be­cause:

小学应该把多语言教学作为优先_事项因为我们在年幼时学习语言的_效果

Ele­ment­ary schools should make teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages a pri­or­ity_claim be­cause we ac­quire lan­guages best and most eas­ily when we are young._reason

通常你需要不止一个理由来支持你的论点，而在复杂的论证中，你的理由通常还需要更多理由的支持：

You of­ten need more than one reason to sup­port a claim, and in a com­plex ar­gu­ment, your reas­ons will usu­ally re­quire sup­port from still more reas­ons:

小学应将多语言教学作为优先_{事项（论点}1） ，因为我们在年幼时最容易、最好地习得语言。 _（理由1支持论点1/论点2）事实上，成年后才开始学习新语言的人，很少能达到从小学习语言的人的流利程度。 _（理由2支持理由1和论点2/论点3）小学阶段教授多语言也有助于儿童的道德发展（理由3_{支持论点1/论点4），因为它能}培养他们对自身文化和社会之外的其他文化和社会的认识。（理由4_{支持理由3和论点4/论点5）}

Ele­ment­ary schools should make teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages a pri­or­ity_{claim 1} be­cause we ac­quire lan­guages best and most eas­ily when we are young._{reason 1 sup­port­ing claim 1/claim 2} In fact, those who be­gin new lan­guages as adults rarely at­tain the level of flu­ency of those who learn them as chil­dren._{reason 2 sup­port­ing reason 1 and claim 2/claim 3} Teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages at the ele­ment­ary school level also con­trib­utes to chil­dren’s eth­ical de­vel­op­ment_{reason 3 sup­port­ing claim 1/claim 4} be­cause it fosters an aware­ness of cul­tures and so­ci­et­ies bey­ond their own._{reason 4 sup­port­ing reason 3 and claim 4/claim 5}

5.2.2  基于证据的理由

5.2.2  Base Reas­ons on Evid­ence

第二种支撑是支撑你论点的证据。我们说过，论点往往需要其他论点的支持，但这种支持链不会无限延伸。最终，你必须拿出一些具体的数据或信息。这就是你的证据。论点和证据这两个词有时似乎可以互换使用：

The second kind of sup­port is the evid­ence on which you base your reas­ons. We’ve said that reas­ons of­ten re­quire sup­port from ad­di­tional reas­ons, but these chains don’t go on forever. Even­tu­ally you have to show some con­crete data or in­form­a­tion. That’s your evid­ence. The terms reas­ons and evid­ence some­times seem in­ter­change­able:

你提出这一说法的依据是什么？

你的说法基于什么证据？

On what reas­ons do you base your claim?

On what evid­ence do you base your claim?

但它们的意思不同。请比较以下两个句子：

But they mean dif­fer­ent things. Com­pare these two sen­tences:

你的理由基于什么证据？

你的证据依据是什么？

On what evid­ence do you base your reas­ons?

On what reas­ons do you base your evid­ence?

第二句话很奇怪：我们不以理由为依据来论证，而是以证据为依据来论证。我们构思理由：这些理由是用来支持我们论点的陈述。我们必须在现实世界中寻找证据，然后让所有人都能看到。证据证据是指我们用来支撑论点的各种信息或数据——统计数据、例子、引文、图片、模型等等。论点需要证据的支持；而证据本身则无需其他支持，只需严谨的论证或可靠来源的引用即可。

That second sen­tence is odd: we don’t base evid­ence on reas­ons; we base reas­ons on evid­ence. We think up reas­ons: they are state­ments that sup­port our claims. We have to search for evid­ence “out there” in the world and then make it avail­able for every­one to see. Evid­ence is the in­form­a­tion or data—stat­ist­ics, ex­amples, quo­ta­tions, im­ages, mod­els, and so on—that we use to back up our reas­ons. Reas­ons need the sup­port of evid­ence; evid­ence should need no sup­port bey­ond care­ful demon­stra­tion or a ref­er­ence to a re­li­able source.

在日常对话中，我们通常只用理由来支持自己的观点：

In cas­ual con­ver­sa­tion, we usu­ally sup­port a claim with just a reason:

我们应该走了。_{理由：看起来}要下雨了。

We should leave._claim It looks like rain._reason

很少有人会问：“你有什么证据证明看起来像下雨了？”但在研究论证中，你也必须提供证据，因为谨慎的听众不会轻易接受表面原因：

Few ask, What’s your evid­ence that it looks like rain? But in a re­search ar­gu­ment you also have to give evid­ence be­cause a care­ful audi­ence won’t ac­cept reas­ons at face value:

小学应该将多语言教学作为优先_{事项（论点}1） ，因为我们在年幼时学习语言的效果最好、最容易。 _（理由1支持论点1/论点2）事实上，成年后才开始学习新语言的人，很少能达到从小学习新语言的人的流利程度。 _（理由2支持理由1/论点3 ）琼斯（2013）在一项针对一百多名语言学习者的研究中发现，新语言熟练程度与……呈负相关（见表1）。（_{证据支持理由2）}

Ele­ment­ary schools should make teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages a pri­or­ity_{claim 1} be­cause we ac­quire lan­guages best and most eas­ily when we are young._{reason 1 sup­port­ing claim 1/claim 2} In fact, those who be­gin new lan­guages as adults rarely at­tain the level of flu­ency of those who learn them as chil­dren._{reason 2 sup­port­ing reason 1/claim 3} In a study of over one hun­dred lan­guage learners, Jones (2013) iden­ti­fied an in­verse cor­rel­a­tion between new-lan­guage pro­fi­ciency and . . . (see table 1)._{evid­ence sup­port­ing reason 2}

有了理由和证据，我们就拥有了研究论证的核心：

With reas­ons and evid­ence, we have the core of a re­search ar­gu­ment:

但在大多数情况下，仅凭这一核心内容是不够的：你还需要通过（有时）提供论据来充实你的研究论点，以表明某个理由与某个主张的相关性，并通过承认和回应其他观点来充实你的研究论点。

But in most cases, this core alone isn’t enough: you also have to flesh out your re­search ar­gu­ment by (some­times) of­fer­ing war­rants that show how a reason is rel­ev­ant to a claim and by ac­know­ledging and re­spond­ing to other points of view.

6.2.1  明确你的诉求

6.2.1  Make Your Claim Spe­cific

模糊的主张会导致模糊的论证。你的主张越具体，就越有助于你构建论证。比较以下两个主张：

Vague claims lead to vague ar­gu­ments. The more spe­cific your claim, the more it helps you plan your ar­gu­ment. Com­pare these two claims:

远程办公对社会有害。

远程办公会减少公共交通的客流量，并削弱市中心零售商和餐馆的自然客户群，从而威胁城市中心的社会结构。

Re­mote work is det­ri­mental to so­ci­ety.

Re­mote work threatens the so­cial fab­ric of urban cen­ters by re­du­cing rider­ship on pub­lic trans­port­a­tion and erod­ing the nat­ural cus­tomer base for down­town re­tail­ers and res­taur­ants.

第一种说法过于笼统，我们几乎无法预知接下来的内容。第二种说法则包含一系列具体概念，为研究者提供思路或主题，以便在接下来的论证中展开。这种具体性预示着论证可能的发展方向。

The first is so vague that we have little idea about what’s to come. The second in­cludes a set of spe­cific con­cepts that give the re­searcher ideas or themes to de­velop in the ar­gu­ment that fol­lows. The claim’s spe­cificity sig­nals how the ar­gu­ment is likely to pro­ceed.

6.2.2  使您的主张具有实质性意义

6.2.2  Make Your Claim Sig­ni­fic­ant

在关注论断的具体性之后，受众最关注的是其重要性，他们衡量重要性的标准是：论断要求他们改变多少固有观念。虽然我们无法量化重要性，但可以粗略估计：如果受众接受某个论断，他们需要改变多少固有信念？这些信念又有多么根深蒂固？最重要的论断要求受众改变他们最坚定的信念（因此，他们会抵制这类论断）。

After the spe­cificity of a claim, an audi­ence looks most closely at its sig­ni­fic­ance, a qual­ity they meas­ure by how much it asks them to change what they think. While we can’t quantify sig­ni­fic­ance, we can roughly es­tim­ate it: If an audi­ence ac­cepts a claim, how many be­liefs must they change? And how found­a­tional are those be­liefs? The most sig­ni­fic­ant claims ask an audi­ence to change their most strongly held be­liefs (and they will res­ist such claims ac­cord­ingly).

研究界有时认为，如果一项研究成果仅仅提供了关于某个感兴趣主题的新信息，那么它就具有重要意义：

Re­search com­munit­ies some­times con­sider a claim sig­ni­fic­ant if it simply of­fers new in­form­a­tion on a topic of in­terest:

本文介绍六部十三世纪用拉丁文写成的威尔士语语法著作。这些语法著作是近期才被发现的，也是同类著作中仅存的几部。它们有助于我们更好地了解中世纪时期语法著作的丰富多样性。

I de­scribe here six thir­teenth-cen­tury Latin gram­mars of the Welsh lan­guage. Found just re­cently, these gram­mars are the only ex­amples of their kind. They help us bet­ter ap­pre­ci­ate the range of gram­mars writ­ten in the me­di­eval period.

（回想一下引言[ I.4.1 ]中提到的华夫饼爱好者协会的成员们，他们只是想通过一些有趣的事实来消遣。）

(Re­call the mem­bers of that Waffle Lov­ers So­ci­ety from the in­tro­duc­tion [I.4.1], who just wanted to be en­ter­tained by some in­ter­est­ing facts.)

但是，研究界更重视那些不仅提供新信息，而且利用这些信息来解决看似令人困惑、不一致或其他问题的研究成果：

But re­search com­munit­ies value claims more highly when they not only of­fer new in­form­a­tion but use that in­form­a­tion to settle what seems puzz­ling, in­con­sist­ent, or oth­er­wise prob­lem­atic:

长期以来，关于消费者信心波动如何影响股市一直存在争论，但新的统计工具表明，两者之间几乎没有关系……

There has been a long de­bate about how fluc­tu­ations in con­sumer con­fid­ence af­fect the stock mar­ket, but new stat­ist­ical tools sug­gest little re­la­tion­ship between . . .

而且，当某些主张颠覆看似早已尘埃落定时，他们会给予最高的重视：

And they value claims most highly when they up­set what seems long settled:

现代物理学长期以来一直坚信光速在任何时间、任何地点、任何条件下都是恒定的，但新的数据表明，事实可能并非如此。

It has long been an art­icle of faith in mod­ern phys­ics that the speed of light is con­stant every­where at all times, un­der all con­di­tions, but new data sug­gest it might not be.

这样的说法会遭到众多物理学家的反对，因为如果这是真的，那就意味着物理学家不仅要改变对光速的看法，还要改变对许多其他事情的看法。

A claim like that would be con­tested by le­gions of phys­i­cists be­cause if true, it would mean that phys­i­cists would have to change their minds not just about the speed of light but about lots of other things as well.

强调你的论点重要性的一个简单方法是承认它挑战了当前的认知（参见第9章）。关于远程工作的第二个论点已经足够具体，但可能仍然显得片面。因此，可以通过添加一个以“虽然”、“尽管”或“即便”等词语或短语开头的限定性从句来“充实”它：

One simple way to sig­nal the sig­ni­fic­ance of your claim is to ac­know­ledge the cur­rent un­der­stand­ing it chal­lenges (see chapter 9). That second claim about re­mote work is spe­cific enough, but it might still seem one-sided. So “thicken” it by in­tro­du­cing it with a qual­i­fy­ing clause be­gin­ning with a word or phrase like al­though, while, or even though:

虽然远程办公给公司和员工带来了许多好处，但它也威胁到城市中心的社会结构，因为它减少了公共交通的客流量，并削弱了市中心零售商和餐馆的自然客户群。

Al­though re­mote work of­fers many be­ne­fits to com­pan­ies and em­ploy­ees, it also threatens the so­cial fab­ric of urban cen­ters by re­du­cing rider­ship on pub­lic trans­port­a­tion and erod­ing the nat­ural cus­tomer base for down­town re­tail­ers and res­taur­ants.

你可以使用以“虽然”或类似词语开头的引导性从句来承认三种不同的观点：

You can use an in­tro­duct­ory clause be­gin­ning with al­though or a sim­ilar word to ac­know­ledge three kinds of al­tern­at­ive views:

• ▪ 你的听众所相信但你的论点挑战的是：

  1. 尽管许多人认为远程办公几乎没有任何负面影响……
  2. ▪ 与你的观点相冲突的观点：
  3. 尽管一些较早的研究表明，远程办公并不会显著降低城市消费者的支出……
  4. ▪ 限制您索赔范围或保证金的条件：
  5. 尽管远程办公模式出现时间尚短，难以评估其对城市的长期影响……

• ▪  Some­thing that your audi­ence be­lieves but your claim chal­lenges:

  1. Al­though many as­sume that re­mote work has few if any neg­at­ive con­sequences . . .
  2. ▪  A point of view that con­flicts with yours:
  3. Al­though some older re­search sug­gests that re­mote work does not sig­ni­fic­antly re­duce con­sumer spend­ing in cit­ies . . .
  4. ▪  A con­di­tion that lim­its the scope or con­fid­ence of your claim:
  5. Al­though it is dif­fi­cult to gauge the long-term ef­fects of re­mote work on cit­ies be­cause it is so new . . .

如果你的听众可能会想到这些限定条件，那就首先承认它们的存在。这不仅表明你理解他们的观点，也承诺会在论证过程中回应这些观点。

If your audi­ence might think of those qual­i­fic­a­tions, ac­know­ledge them first. You not only im­ply that you un­der­stand their views, but you com­mit your­self to re­spond­ing to them in the course of your ar­gu­ment.

如果你是一位资深研究人员，你会通过你的研究成果对所在领域（例如学术界）的认知和研究方式产生的改变程度来衡量其重要性。很少有科学成就能像传统DNA双螺旋结构模型那样意义重大。这项发现归功于詹姆斯·沃森和弗朗西斯·克里克。它不仅改变了科学家们对遗传学的思考方式，还在生物学、数学、历史学等学科领域创造了新的研究问题和机遇。沃森和克里克清楚地知道他们想要寻找的是什么。为了构建他们的模型，他们借鉴并整合了许多其他科学家几十年来的研究成果，其中包括莫里斯·威尔金斯和罗莎琳德·富兰克林的关键经验数据（关于这种情况的伦理问题，请参见17.2 ）。

If you are an ad­vanced re­searcher, you meas­ure the sig­ni­fic­ance of your claim by how much it changes what your com­munity thinks and how it does its re­search. Few sci­entific ac­com­plish­ments have been as sig­ni­fic­ant as the model of the double-helix struc­ture of DNA tra­di­tion­ally cred­ited to James Wat­son and Fran­cis Crick. Not only did it make sci­ent­ists think about ge­net­ics dif­fer­ently, but it cre­ated new re­search ques­tions and op­por­tun­it­ies in dis­cip­lines from bio­logy to math­em­at­ics to his­tory. Wat­son and Crick knew what they were look­ing for. To ar­rive at their model, they built on and in­teg­rated re­search find­ings by many other sci­ent­ists go­ing back dec­ades, in­clud­ing cru­cial em­pir­ical data be­long­ing to Maurice Wilkins and Ros­alind Frank­lin (see 17.2 for more about the eth­ics of this situ­ation).

但重大发现往往出乎意料。我们的一位同事，人类学家法卢·恩戈姆（Fallou Ngom）在他已故父亲的遗物中发现了一份用类似阿拉伯文字书写的文字，读起来像是西非语言沃洛夫语。恩戈姆感到困惑：虽然他在塞内加尔长大，但他从未听说过这种文字系统；事实上，他一直以为他的父亲根本不识字。出于好奇，他开始寻找其他类似的文字，结果发现到处都有。从西方学术的角度来看，他发现的是阿贾米文字（'Ajamī），一种源自阿拉伯文字并用于书写多种西非语言的文字系统。恩戈姆的发现颠覆了长期以来以欧洲为中心的观念，即许多西非社会都是文盲，而事实上，它们拥有可以追溯到几个世纪前的丰富文字文化。这一发现也为研究开辟了新的视野。

But sig­ni­fic­ant dis­cov­er­ies also come by sur­prise. One of our col­leagues, the an­thro­po­lo­gist Fal­lou Ngom, found among his de­ceased father’s pa­pers a piece of writ­ing in an Ar­abic-like script that read like the West African lan­guage Wo­lof. Ngom was puzzled: al­though he had been raised in Senegal, he was un­aware that such a writ­ing sys­tem ex­is­ted; in fact, he had thought that his father couldn’t write at all. Curi­ous, he began look­ing for other ex­amples of such writ­ing and found it every­where. What he dis­covered (from the per­spect­ive of West­ern schol­ar­ship) was ‘Ajamī, a writ­ing sys­tem ad­ap­ted from Ar­abic used to write a host of West African lan­guages. Ngom’s dis­cov­ery upen­ded the long-es­tab­lished Euro­centric be­lief that many West African so­ci­et­ies were il­lit­er­ate when in fact they have rich writ­ten cul­tures go­ing back cen­tur­ies. And in so do­ing, it opened up new ho­ri­zons for re­search.

这些故事展现了发现与专业知识之间复杂的关系：沃森和克里克利用他们的研究群体的工作成果解决了他们最重要的问题之一；恩戈姆在西方历史学和人类学学科方面的专业知识（他在法国和美国的大学接受了研究训练）使他能够从他父亲的论文中看到这些学科的重要性。

These stor­ies show the com­plex re­la­tion­ship between dis­cov­ery and ex­pert­ise: Wat­son and Crick drew on the work of their re­search com­munity to solve one of its most im­port­ant prob­lems; Ngom’s ex­pert­ise in the West­ern dis­cip­lines of his­tory and an­thro­po­logy (he re­ceived his train­ing as a re­searcher at French and Amer­ican uni­ver­sit­ies) al­lowed him to see the im­port­ance for those dis­cip­lines of that note in his father’s pa­pers.

你不必提出惊世骇俗的论断才能对研究界做出有益的贡献。即使是微小的发现，如果能够挑战现有知识或提出新的问题，也可能意义重大（参见第一章）。例如，如果你发现马丁·路德·金在高中时期写过一篇关于某位哲学家的论文，历史学家就会仔细研究金后来的著作，寻找这种影响的痕迹。

You don’t have to of­fer a sweep­ing claim to make a use­ful con­tri­bu­tion to a re­search com­munity. Even small find­ings can be sig­ni­fic­ant if they chal­lenge cur­rent know­ledge or raise new ques­tions (see chapter 1). If, for ex­ample, you dis­covered that Mar­tin Luther King Jr. wrote a high school pa­per on some philo­sopher, his­tor­i­ans would comb King’s later writ­ings for traces of that in­flu­ence.

当然，如果你是一名学生或某个领域的新研究人员，你可能无法提出挑战专家观点的论断（或者无法识别出专家的观点）。当你发现这类论断时，可以先进行核实。但你仍然可以通过将你的论断置于你自身以及你的班级或同伴的知识和思维背景下进行思考，来体验为研究群体提出论证的意义。想象一下，听众都是和你一样的人。在你开始研究之前，你是怎么想的？你的论断在多大程度上改变了你现在的想法？你现在理解了哪些以前不理解的东西？这是准备回答任何研究者都可能面临的最重要问题的最佳方式：不是“我为什么要相信这个？”，而是“我为什么要关心这个？”（参见 I.4.3、2.5 和 9.1）。

Of course, if you are a stu­dent or a new re­searcher in a field, you may not be able to make claims that chal­lenge the ex­perts (or to re­cog­nize such claims when you find them). But you can still ex­per­i­ence what it means to make ar­gu­ments for a re­search com­munity by con­sid­er­ing your claims in the con­text of your own know­ledge and think­ing, and that of your class or peers. Ima­gine an audi­ence made up of people like your­self. What did you think be­fore you began your re­search? How much has your claim changed what you now think? What do you un­der­stand now that you didn’t be­fore? That’s the best way to pre­pare to an­swer the most im­port­ant ques­tion any re­searcher can face: not Why should I be­lieve this? but Why should I care? (See I.4.3, 2.5, and 9.1.)

6.3.1  承认限制条件

6.3.1  Ac­know­ledge Lim­it­ing Con­di­tions

每项索赔都有限制条件：

Every claim has lim­it­ing con­di­tions:

我们预计，如果目前的保护措施继续实施，切萨皮克湾的蓝蟹数量将继续增长。

根据现有经济数据，全球经济衰退的可能性似乎不大。

根据目前的气候模型，地球温度最早可能在 2030 年代中期比工业化前水平升高 2 摄氏度。

We ex­pect the blue crab pop­u­la­tion in the Ches­apeake Bay to con­tinue ex­pand­ing, as­sum­ing today’s con­ser­va­tion meas­ures re­main in place.

Based on avail­able eco­nomic data, a global re­ces­sion ap­pears un­likely.

Ac­cord­ing to cur­rent cli­mate mod­els, the earth could warm to two de­grees Celsius over pre-in­dus­trial levels as soon as the mid-2030s.

因此，只需提及听众可能想到的例子即可。科学家很少承认他们的论断取决于仪器的精度，因为这种局限性适用于所有科学测量。但经济学家经常承认其论断的局限性，因为他们的预测会受到不断变化的情况的影响。因为他们想表明需要关注哪些条件。在下一个例子中，作者提及限制条件，使得论点能够得到更完整、更准确的阐述：

So men­tion only those that your audi­ence might plaus­ibly think of. Sci­ent­ists rarely ac­know­ledge that their claims de­pend on the ac­cur­acy of their in­stru­ments be­cause that lim­it­a­tion ap­plies to every sci­entific meas­ure­ment. But eco­nom­ists of­ten ac­know­ledge lim­its on their claims be­cause their pre­dic­tions are sub­ject to chan­ging con­di­tions and be­cause they want to sig­nal what con­di­tions to watch for. In this next ex­ample, the writer’s men­tion of lim­it­ing con­di­tions al­lows for a fuller and more ac­cur­ate state­ment of the claim:

如今，富兰克林·罗斯福广受尊敬，但在他第二个任期末期，至少在美国社会的某些群体中，他的支持率却很低_。例如，报纸抨击他宣扬社会主义，认为这是现代政府陷入困境的标志。1938年，中西部地区70%的报纸指责他想让政府管理银行系统……有些人持不同观点，包括尼科尔森（1983，1992）和威金斯（1973），他们都提供了一些轶事，_表明但这些说法仅仅基于那些有意将罗斯福神化的人的记忆。_除非 能够证明批评罗斯福的报纸受到特殊利益集团的控制，否则这种_说法存在局限性，即这些报纸_的攻击表明民众对罗斯福的总统任期存在严重的不满。

Today Frank­lin D. Roosevelt is widely revered, but to­ward the end of his second term, he was quite un­pop­u­lar, at least among cer­tain seg­ments of Amer­ican so­ci­ety._claim News­pa­pers, for ex­ample, at­tacked him for pro­mot­ing so­cial­ism, a sign that a mod­ern ad­min­is­tra­tion is in trouble. In 1938, 70 per­cent of Mid­w­est news­pa­pers ac­cused him of want­ing the gov­ern­ment to man­age the bank­ing sys­tem. . . . Some have ar­gued oth­er­wise, in­clud­ing Nich­olson (1983, 1992) and Wig­gins (1973), both of whom of­fer an­ec­dotal re­ports that Roosevelt was al­ways in high re­gard,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but these re­ports are sup­por­ted only by the memor­ies of those who had an in­terest in dei­fy­ing FDR._re­sponse Un­less it can be shown that the news­pa­pers crit­ical of Roosevelt were con­trolled by spe­cial in­terests,_{lim­it­a­tion on claim} their at­tacks demon­strate sig­ni­fic­ant pop­u­lar dis­sat­is­fac­tion with Roosevelt’s pres­id­ency._{re­state­ment of claim}

6.3.2  利用对冲来限制确定性

6.3.2  Use Hedges to Limit Cer­tainty

我们很少能绝对肯定地陈述自己的观点。谨慎的作者会用一些词语和短语来限定他们的确定性，这些词语和短语被称为“缓和语”。

Only rarely can we state our claims with ab­so­lute cer­tainty. Care­ful writers qual­ify their cer­tainty with words and phrases called hedges.

沃森和克里克明白他们的 DNA 模型具有巨大的意义，但当他们宣布这一模型时，他们仍然对自己的说法有所保留（保留意见以粗体显示；引言部分已精简）：

Wat­son and Crick un­der­stood the tre­mend­ous sig­ni­fic­ance of their model of DNA, but when they an­nounced it, they still hedged their claims (hedges are bold­faced; the in­tro­duc­tion is con­densed):

我们希望提出一种脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）盐的结构（注：此处不明确指出具体结构）。……鲍林和科里已经提出了核酸的结构。……我们认为，该结构存在两个不足之处：(1)我们认为， X射线衍射图谱所显示的物质是盐，而非游离酸。……(2)部分范德华距离似乎过小。（JD Watson 和 FHC Crick，《核酸的分子结构》）

We wish to sug­gest a [note: not state the] struc­ture for the salt of deoxyribose nuc­leic acid (D.N.A.). . . . A struc­ture for nuc­leic acid has already been pro­posed by Paul­ing and Corey. . . . In our opin­ion, this struc­ture is un­sat­is­fact­ory for two reas­ons: (1) We be­lieve that the ma­ter­ial which gives the X-ray dia­grams is the salt, not the free acid. . . . (2) Some of the van der Waals dis­tances ap­pear to be too small. (J. D. Wat­son and F. H. C. Crick, “Mo­lecu­lar Struc­ture of Nuc­leic Acids”)

去掉这些限定语，这些句子会更简洁，但也更具攻击性。请将谨慎的段落与这个更强硬的版本进行比较（这种攻击性很大程度上源于缺乏限定）：

Without the hedges, these sen­tences would be more con­cise but also more ag­gress­ive. Com­pare that cau­tious pas­sage with this more force­ful ver­sion (much of the ag­gress­ive tone comes from the lack of qual­i­fic­a­tion):

我们在此公布脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）盐的结构……鲍林和科里此前已提出过核酸的结构……但他们的结构存在两个过不足之小。

We an­nounce here the struc­ture for the salt of deoxyribose nuc­leic acid (D.N.A.). . . . A struc­ture for nuc­leic acid has already been pro­posed by Paul­ing and Corey. . . . Their struc­ture is un­sat­is­fact­ory for two reas­ons: (1) The ma­ter­ial which gives their X-ray dia­grams is the salt, not the free acid. . . . (2) Their van der Waals dis­tances are too small.

在大多数领域，听众对使用“所有”、“没有人”、“每个” 、“总是”、“从不”等词语表达的绝对确定性持怀疑态度，但如果你使用过多的模棱两可的措辞，又会显得畏首畏尾。不同的研究群体使用模棱两可的程度各不相同，找到合适的平衡点需要经验积累。因此，观察你所在领域的专家是如何运用模棱两可的措辞来论证观点的，并效仿他们的做法。

In most fields, audi­ences dis­trust pat cer­tainty ex­pressed in words like all, no one, every, al­ways, never, and so on, but if you hedge too much, you will seem timid. Dif­fer­ent re­search com­munit­ies use hedges to dif­fer­ent de­grees, and find­ing the right bal­ance is a mat­ter of ex­per­i­ence. So no­tice how ex­perts in your field hedge their ar­gu­ments and do like­wise.

▶ 小贴士：让你的索赔可质疑

▶ Quick Tip: Make Your Claim Con­test­able

你可以通过询问是否有人会费心反驳来衡量你的观点是否具有潜在意义。如果没有人反驳，那么你的观点可能就不值得争论。以下是三个因不同原因而显得站不住脚的观点：

You can gauge the po­ten­tial sig­ni­fic­ance of your claim by ask­ing whether any­one would bother to con­test it. If not, then your claim may not be worth ar­guing. Here are three claims, which are weak for dif­fer­ent reas­ons:

本报告总结了近期关于蜜蜂消失的研究成果。

巴拉克·奥巴马是美国第一位黑人总统。

在莎士比亚的《哈姆雷特》中，哈姆雷特并不是一个重要人物。

This re­port sum­mar­izes re­cent re­search on the dis­ap­pear­ance of bees.

Barack Obama was the first Black pres­id­ent of the United States.

Ham­let is not an im­port­ant char­ac­ter in Shakespeare’s Ham­let.

要评估这些说法是否值得反驳，请考虑它们的反面：

To as­sess whether these claims are worth con­test­ing, con­sider their op­pos­ites:

本报告并未总结近期关于蜜蜂消失的研究成果。

巴拉克·奥巴马并非美国第一位黑人总统。

哈姆雷特是莎士比亚戏剧《哈姆雷特》中的一个重要人物。

This re­port does not sum­mar­ize re­cent re­search on the dis­ap­pear­ance of bees.

Barack Obama was not the first Black pres­id­ent of the United States.

Ham­let is an im­port­ant char­ac­ter in Shakespeare’s Ham­let.

第一个论断仅仅是对报告主题的陈述。它的反面完全是无稽之谈。（准确地说，它是一个事实陈述，但事实是关于报告本身，而不是关于蜜蜂。）第二个论断（也是一个事实陈述）很容易验证。它的反面显然是错误的。第三个论断（一个评价性论断）或许看似有力，但它的反面显而易见，无需赘言。莎士比亚将他的戏剧命名为《丹麦王子哈姆雷特的悲剧》想必是有原因的。因此，这些论断都不值得争论——大概吧。

That first claim is merely an as­ser­tion of the re­port’s topic. Its op­pos­ite is just non­sensical. (To be pre­cise, it is a claim of fact, but the fact is about the re­port, not about the bees.) The second (also a claim of fact) is eas­ily veri­fi­able. Its op­pos­ite is demon­strably false. The third (a claim of eval­u­ation) may seem strong, but its op­pos­ite is so ob­vi­ous that it goes without say­ing. Shakespeare pre­sum­ably titled his play The Tragedy of Ham­let, Prince of Den­mark for a reason. So none of these claims are worth ar­guing—prob­ably.

该测试并非万无一失，一些伟大的思想家成功地反驳了看似不言而喻的说法，就像哥白尼那样，他当时愚蠢地断言——或者至少在当时看来是这样——太阳不是绕着地球转的。

The test isn’t fool­proof, and some great thinkers have suc­cess­fully con­tra­dicted ap­par­ently self-evid­ent claims, as Co­per­ni­cus did when he as­ser­ted fool­ishly—or so it seemed at the time—that the sun does not go around the earth.

7.5.1  你的证据准确吗？

7.5.1  Is Your Evid­ence Ac­cur­ate?

人们常常混淆准确度和精确度。准确度指的是你对证据的报告与证据本身的吻合程度。（如果其他人重新进行你的测量，他们会得到和你一样的数据吗？如果他们核对你引用的小说段落，他们会发现你偶尔抄写错误吗？）精确度指的是对同一数值进行重复测量后，各次测量结果之间的接近程度。（当你重复进行三次实验时，每次测量结果之间的接近程度如何？）两者都很重要。

People of­ten con­fuse ac­cur­acy and pre­ci­sion. Ac­cur­acy refers to how closely your re­port of your evid­ence matches the evid­ence it­self. (If someone else were to redo your meas­ure­ments, would they get the same num­bers you did? If they were to check your quo­ta­tions from a novel, would they dis­cover that you mis­tran­scribed a word here and there?) Pre­ci­sion refers to how close re­peated meas­ure­ments of a value are to each other. (When you ran your ex­per­i­ment three times, how close were your meas­ure­ments to each other?) Both are im­port­ant.

研究论证的受众往往抱持怀疑态度，因此他们会将证据中的错误视为你整体不可靠的标志。无论你的研究论证依赖于在实验室、田野、档案馆收集的信息，还是来自图书馆或网络资源的信息，都应完整清晰地记录下来，并在论文或演示文稿中使用时仔细核对（参见第四章）。注重细节体现了你的严谨。

The audi­ences for re­search ar­gu­ments are pre­dis­posed to be skep­tical, so they re­gard mis­takes in your evid­ence as signs of your broader un­re­li­ab­il­ity. Whether your re­search ar­gu­ment de­pends on in­form­a­tion col­lec­ted in a lab, in the field, in an archive, or from sources you found in the lib­rary or on­line, re­cord that in­form­a­tion com­pletely and clearly, then double-check it when you use it in your pa­per or present­a­tion (see chapter 4). Get­ting the small things right demon­strates your care­ful­ness.

即使证据本身存疑，只要你承认其可靠性，有时也可以使用。事实上，如果你指出一些看似支持​​你论点的证据，但随后又指出其不可靠，这反而会展现出你的谨慎、自省，从而赢得信任。

You can some­times use even ques­tion­able evid­ence, if you ac­know­ledge its du­bi­ous qual­ity. In fact, if you point to evid­ence that seems to sup­port your claim but then re­ject it as un­re­li­able, you show your­self to be cau­tious, self-crit­ical, and thus trust­worthy.

7.5.2  你的证据是否足够精确？

7.5.2  Is Your Evid­ence Ap­pro­pri­ately Pre­cise?

听众也希望你以恰当的精确度陈述证据。如果你说话含糊其辞，他们就会心存疑虑。其目的并非承认合理的各种不确定性，而是为了掩盖含糊不清之处：

Audi­ences also want you to state your evid­ence with ap­pro­pri­ate pre­ci­sion. They be­come wary when you hedge in ways that seem in­ten­ded not to ac­know­ledge le­git­im­ate un­cer­tain­ties but to ex­cuse vague­ness:

美国林务局投入了大量资金来预防森林火灾，但发生大型、代价高昂的森林火灾的可能性仍然很高。

The Forest Ser­vice has spent a great deal of money to pre­vent forest fires, but there is still a high prob­ab­il­ity of large, costly ones.

多少钱才算大手笔？高概率到底有多大——30 %？80%？什么才算大手笔且昂贵？注意诸如“一些”、 “大多数” 、 “许多”、“几乎”、“经常”、“通常” 、“一般”等词语。这些词语可以恰当地缩小结论的范围，但如果研究人员没有认真核实数据，它们也可能造成误导。

How much money is a great deal? How prob­able is a high prob­ab­il­ity—30 per­cent? 80 per­cent? What counts as large and costly? Watch for words like some, most, many, al­most, of­ten, usu­ally, fre­quently, gen­er­ally, and so on. Such words can ap­pro­pri­ately limit the breadth of a claim, but they can also fudge it if the re­searcher didn’t work hard enough to get the pre­cise num­bers.

然而，何为恰当的精确度，因领域而异。物理学家以纳秒的几分之一来测量夸克的寿命，因此可接受的误差范围微乎其微。历史学家在估算苏联何时走向不可避免的崩溃时，会以月为单位进行估计。古生物学家对新发现物种的年代测定，误差可能在数万年左右。按照各自领域的标准，这三种方法都算是恰当的精确度。（证据也可能过于精确。只有鲁莽的历史学家才会断言苏联在1987年8月18日下午2点13分走向不可避免的崩溃。）

What counts as ap­pro­pri­ately pre­cise, how­ever, dif­fers by field. A phys­i­cist meas­ures the life of quarks in frac­tions of a nano­second, so the tol­er­able mar­gin of er­ror is van­ish­ingly small. A his­tor­ian gauging when the So­viet Union reached the point of in­ev­it­able col­lapse would es­tim­ate it in months. A pa­le­on­to­lo­gist might date a newly dis­covered spe­cies give or take tens of thou­sands of years. Ac­cord­ing to the stand­ards of their fields, all three are ap­pro­pri­ately pre­cise. (Evid­ence can also be too pre­cise. Only a fool­hardy his­tor­ian would as­sert that the So­viet Union reached its point of in­ev­it­able col­lapse at 2:13 p.m. on Au­gust 18, 1987.)

7.5.3  你的证据是否充分且具有代表性？

7.5.3  Is Your Evid­ence Suf­fi­cient and Rep­res­ent­at­ive?

初学者通常提供的证据太少。他们认为只需引用一句话、一个数字或一次个人经历就能证明某个论点（尽管有时只需要一条证据就足以反驳它）。例如：

Be­gin­ners typ­ic­ally of­fer too little evid­ence. They think they prove a claim with one quo­ta­tion, one num­ber, one per­sonal ex­per­i­ence (though some­times only one bit of evid­ence is suf­fi­cient to dis­prove it). For ex­ample:

莎士比亚一定是位女权主义者，因为《第十二夜》和《无事生非》中的女性角色都非常自信。

Shakespeare must have been a fem­in­ist be­cause the wo­men in Twelfth Night and Much Ado about Noth­ing are so self-con­fid­ent.

观众需要更多信息才能接受如此重大的论断。

An audi­ence needs more than that to ac­cept such a sig­ni­fic­ant claim.

即使你提供大量证据，你的听众仍然会期望这些证据能够代表所有可获取的证据类型。莎士比亚一两部戏剧中的女性角色并不能代表他笔下的所有女性角色，正如莎士比亚的作品并不能代表伊丽莎白时代的所有戏剧一样。当你的证据样本量很小时，听众尤其会保持警惕。从大量数据中，例如调查数据，得出结果。无论何时使用抽样数据，不仅数据必须具有代表性，而且还必须证明这一点。

Even if you of­fer lots of evid­ence, your audi­ence will still ex­pect it to be rep­res­ent­at­ive of the full range of vari­ation in what’s avail­able. The wo­men in one or two Shakespearean plays do not rep­res­ent all his wo­men, any more than Shakespeare rep­res­ents all Eliza­bethan drama. Audi­ences are es­pe­cially wary when your evid­ence is a small sample from a large body of data, as in sur­veys. Whenever you use sampled data, not only must your data be rep­res­ent­at­ive, but you must show that it is.

证据有时会因轶事性质而受到质疑。轶事是对个人经历或事件的简短描述。轶事证据并非通过系统性的研究方法收集，而是随意地通过个人经验获得。它可能具有代表性，但也可能不具有代表性。当然，人们往往容易被故事打动，因此轶事证据有时比统计数据更具说服力。正是这些具有说服力的例子、完美的案例研究或例外证明规则的例子，使得以轶事为论据既有力又充满风险。

Evid­ence is some­times ques­tioned for be­ing an­ec­dotal. An an­ec­dote is a short re­port of a per­sonal ex­per­i­ence or epis­ode. An­ec­dotal evid­ence is evid­ence gathered not sys­tem­at­ic­ally by ap­ply­ing a re­search method but ar­bit­rar­ily through per­sonal ex­per­i­ence. It might be rep­res­ent­at­ive but, then again, it might not. Of course, people tend to be moved by stor­ies, so an­ec­dotal evid­ence can some­times be per­suas­ive in ways that stat­ist­ics are not. The very per­suas­ive­ness of the telling ex­ample, the per­fect case study, or the ex­cep­tion that proves the rule makes ar­gu­ment by an­ec­dote power­ful but also risky.

与之相关的指控是“断章取义” ，即只呈现那些支持某种理由和主张的证据，而忽略其他不相关的证据。这种指控对研究人员来说是最具破坏性的，因为它不仅意味着粗心大意，还意味着不诚实。为了避免这种指控，你必须证明你已经考虑了所有可用的证据。

A re­lated charge is that of cherry-pick­ing, of present­ing only those bits of evid­ence that sup­port a reason and claim and ig­nor­ing avail­able pieces of evid­ence that don’t. This charge is one of the most dev­ast­at­ing a re­searcher can face be­cause it im­plies not just care­less­ness but dis­hon­esty. To avoid it, you must show that you have con­sidered all of the evid­ence avail­able to you.

7.5.4  你的证据是否具有权威性？

7.5.4  Is Your Evid­ence Au­thor­it­at­ive?

一般来说，研究人员会根据信息来源的严谨性和客观性来判断其权威程度。因此，不仅要考虑信息来源的内容，还要考虑其类型。例如，大多数科学家会接受美国疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）提供的病毒传播数据，即使考虑到其中可能存在误差（即便一些怀疑论者质疑CDC的客观性，并认为其指导意见受到政治因素的影响）。然而，很少有人会信任来自维基百科的同一主题的数据，或者在研究报告中引用维基百科，因为在他们所属的研究群体中，维基百科并不被视为权威来源。

In gen­eral, re­search­ers as­sign de­grees of au­thor­ity to sources based on their repu­ta­tion for rigor and ob­jectiv­ity. That’s why it’s im­port­ant to con­sider not just what a source says but also what kind of source it is. For ex­ample, most sci­ent­ists would ac­cept data on the trans­mis­sion of vir­uses ob­tained from the US Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol as cred­ible, even al­low­ing for the pos­sib­il­ity of er­ror (and even if some skep­tics doubt the CDC’s ob­jectiv­ity and see its guid­ance as be­ing tain­ted by polit­ics). How­ever, few would trust data on the same topic taken from Wiki­pe­dia—or cite Wiki­pe­dia in a re­search re­port—be­cause in the re­search com­munit­ies to which they be­long, Wiki­pe­dia is not re­garded as au­thor­it­at­ive.

这个例子引出了一个重要的观点：在研究论证中，对信息来源权威性的判断通常是由研究群体而非个人做出的。这些判断以同行评审流程为支撑，在同行评审过程中，研究群体的成员会对研究成果进行审查。论点在发表之前，以及支持学术和科学研究并传播其成果的机构和组织的信誉，都取决于这些机构和组织的信誉：大学和大学出版社、像美国疾病控制与预防中心这样的政府组织，甚至拥有许多学术期刊和数据库的商业企业。

This ex­ample raises an im­port­ant point: In re­search ar­gu­ments, judg­ments about the au­thor­ity of sources are typ­ic­ally made by re­search com­munit­ies, not in­di­vidu­als. They are backed by pro­cesses of peer re­view, in which mem­bers of a re­search com­munity vet re­search ar­gu­ments be­fore they are pub­lished, and by the cred­ib­il­ity of the in­sti­tu­tions and or­gan­iz­a­tions that sup­port schol­arly and sci­entific re­search and propag­ate its res­ults: uni­ver­sit­ies and uni­ver­sity presses, gov­ern­mental or­gan­iz­a­tions such as the CDC, even com­mer­cial en­ter­prises such as those that own many aca­demic journ­als and data­bases.

7.5.5  你的证据是否清晰易懂？

7.5.5  Is Your Evid­ence Clear and Un­der­stand­able?

你的证据或许准确、精确、充分、具有代表性且权威，但如果听众觉得晦涩难懂，无法理解其如何支撑你的论点，那么你提供的证据就形同虚设。无论你提供的是引文、量化数据还是视觉证据，务必确保听众能够注意到你想让他们注意到的内容。

Your evid­ence may be ac­cur­ate, pre­cise, suf­fi­cient and rep­res­ent­at­ive, and au­thor­it­at­ive, but if your audi­ence finds it per­plex­ing, if they can’t un­der­stand how it sup­ports your ar­gu­ment, then you might as well have offered no evid­ence at all. Whether you are of­fer­ing quo­ta­tions, quant­it­at­ive data, or visual evid­ence, be sure your audi­ence will no­tice in it what you want them to no­tice.

例如，引文很少能“不言自明”；你需要解释和解读它们，以确保你的听众能够理解对你来说可能不言而喻的含义。这里，关于《哈姆雷特》的一个论断是基于以下引文的证据：

Quo­ta­tions, for in­stance, rarely “speak for them­selves”; you need to ex­plain and in­ter­pret them to be sure your audi­ence gets a con­nec­tion that may be self-evid­ent to you. Here, a claim about Ham­let is based on the evid­ence of the quo­ta­tion that fol­lows:

当哈姆雷特撞见叔叔克劳狄斯正在祈祷时，他表现出冷静的理性_：

现在我可以动手杀了他吗？现在他正在祈祷。

现在我不会了。于是，我就去了天堂。

因此，我的仇终于报了……（哈姆雷特停顿片刻，沉思）

但是这个恶棍杀害了我的父亲，为此，

我，他唯一的儿子，也犯下了同样的罪行。

升入天堂。

为什么？这是雇佣和薪酬问题，不是报复。(3.3)_证据报告

When Ham­let comes upon his uncle, Claudius, at prayer, he demon­strates cool ra­tion­al­ity:_claim

Now might I do it [kill him] pat, now ’a is a-pray­ing,

And now I’ll do’t. And so ’a goes to heaven,

And so am I re­veng’d. . . . [Ham­let pauses to think]

[But this] vil­lain kills my father, and for that,

I, his sole son, do this same vil­lain send

To heaven.

Why, this is hire and salary, not re­venge. (3.3)_{re­port of evid­ence}

但这段引文如何支持这一论点尚不明确，因为其中没有任何内容明确提及哈姆雷特的理性。相比之下，请比较以下内容：

But it’s not clear how that quo­ta­tion sup­ports the claim be­cause noth­ing in it ex­pli­citly refers to Ham­let’s ra­tion­al­ity. In con­trast, com­pare this:

当哈姆雷特撞见叔叔克劳狄斯正在祈祷时，他表现出了冷静的理性。他_冲动 地想要杀死克劳狄斯，但随即停下来思考——如果趁克劳狄斯祈祷时杀了他，他的灵魂就能升入天堂，但他想让克劳狄斯下地狱，所以他冷静地决定稍后再杀他：_{这是出于理性。}

现在我可以动手了吗（杀了他）？拍拍手……_证据报告

When Ham­let comes upon his uncle, Claudius, at prayer, he demon­strates cool ra­tion­al­ity._claim He im­puls­ively wants to kill Claudius but pauses to re­flect—if he kills Claudius while pray­ing, he will send his soul to heaven, but he wants Claudius damned to hell, so he coolly de­cides to kill him later:_reason

Now might I do it [kill him] pat, . . ._{re­port of evid­ence}

现在我们明白其中的联系了。

Now we see the con­nec­tion.

同样的原则也适用于呈现定量数据或可视化图像。以下是一家咨询公司向客户展示的案例。该客户是一家全球零售商，他们想知道其大销量门店和小销量门店哪家更有增长潜力。咨询公司的研究表明，虽然大销量门店目前的销售额更高，但小销量门店蕴藏着更好的增长机会。报告的初稿包含以下图表：

The same prin­ciple ap­plies when you present quant­it­at­ive data or visual im­ages. Here’s an ex­ample from a con­sult­ing firm’s present­a­tion to a cli­ent. The cli­ent, a global re­tailer, wanted to know whether its large-volume or small-volume stores had greater po­ten­tial for growth. The con­sult­ing firm’s re­search showed that while the large-volume stores cur­rently had more sales, its smal­ler-volume stores offered a bet­ter growth op­por­tun­ity. The first ver­sion of the re­port in­cluded this chart:

但这张图表掩盖了重点，因为它强调的是总销售额和总商机，而不是不同规模门店的相对销售额和商机。在报告的最终版本中，咨询公司将原图表拆分为两张，以便更好地进行比较：

But that chart ob­scures its point be­cause it em­phas­izes total sales and total op­por­tun­ity, not the re­l­at­ive sales and op­por­tun­ity of dif­fer­ent-sized stores. In the fi­nal ver­sion of the re­port, the con­sult­ing firm broke the ori­ginal chart into two, to bet­ter show the com­par­ison:

现在，由于这两个图表共享一个共同的水平轴，我们可以看到这种关系：随着商店规模的增加，即使 2022 财年的销售额上升，预期的增长机会也会下降。

Now, be­cause both charts share a com­mon ho­ri­zontal axis, we can see the re­la­tion­ship: as store size in­creases, the an­ti­cip­ated growth op­por­tun­ity goes down even though fiscal-year sales for 2022 go up.

图像也同样如此。如果观看者没有注意到研究者希望他们注意到的图像内容，他们可能就不会将该图像视为证据。因此，研究者有时会对图像进行增强处理，以突出或展现某些特征。但务必小心，不要让你的“增强”演变成捏造证据。这很容易导致错误的判断。

The same holds for im­ages. If view­ers don’t no­tice in an im­age what a re­searcher wants them to, they might not un­der­stand that im­age as evid­ence. For this reason, re­search­ers some­times en­hance their im­ages to high­light or bring out cer­tain fea­tures. But be care­ful that your “en­hance­ments” don’t amount to fab­ric­at­ing evid­ence. It can be a slip­pery slope.

▶ 小贴士：收集证据的同时评估证据质量

▶ Quick Tip: As­sess Your Evid­ence as You Gather It

在第四章中，我们鼓励你们在笔记中积极运用各种资料，不仅要包含引文或书目信息，还要包含你们自己的想法和感受（参见4.3-4.5 ） 。这一点在记录可能用作证据的数据或信息时尤为重要，因为构成论证核心的三个要素——论点、理由和证据——中，只有证据并非由你们自己构建。记住，论点是你们对自身观点的陈述，理由是支持这些观点的陈述。但证据并非陈述（尽管你们可能会用陈述来呈现证据）；它是支撑其他陈述的数据或信息（参见5.2和7.2 ）。你们需要确保证据记录准确无误，同时也需要理解其价值和局限性。因此，在收集证据的过程中，就要开始评估它。思考一下你们对证据的信任程度以及可以如何利用它。记录你对证据可靠性的判断，你对证据的任何疑虑，甚至是它所暗示的论证思路（你为什么选择记录这些数字或引文？） 。让本章的问题引导你（参见7.5 ）。在收集证据的过程中对其进行评估，至少在三个方面对你有所帮助：首先，它可以避免你陷入机械地记录越来越多的数据和信息的陷阱，这实际上是一种拖延（如果你一直记笔记，就会推迟撰写论文的繁重工作）。其次，它能让你之后更严谨地评估证据，因为你已经有了最初的反应。最后，它能让你尽早思考最终要提出的论点。

In chapter 4, we en­cour­aged you to en­gage sources act­ively in your notes, to in­clude in them not just quo­ta­tions or bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion but your own thoughts and re­ac­tions (see 4.3–4.5). Do­ing that is es­pe­cially im­port­ant when you are re­cord­ing data or in­form­a­tion that you might use as evid­ence be­cause of the three ele­ments that make up your ar­gu­ment’s core—a claim, reas­ons, and evid­ence—your evid­ence is the only one that you don’t for­mu­late your­self. Re­mem­ber, your claims are state­ments of your ideas, and your reas­ons are state­ments that sup­port them. But your evid­ence isn’t a state­ment (al­though you might make state­ments to re­port it); it’s the data or in­form­a­tion on which those other state­ments are based (see 5.2 and 7.2). You need to know that it has been re­cor­ded ac­cur­ately, but you also need to un­der­stand its value and lim­it­a­tions. So be­gin as­sess­ing it as you gather it. Con­sider how far you can trust it and what you might do with it. Note your sense of its re­li­ab­il­ity, any con­cerns you have about it, even lines of ar­gu­ment it sug­gests (Why did you choose to re­cord those num­bers or that quo­ta­tion?). Let the ques­tions in this chapter guide you (see 7.5). As­sess­ing your evid­ence as you gather it will help you in at least three ways: It will pro­tect you from the trap of mech­an­ic­ally re­cord­ing more and more and more data and in­form­a­tion, which can be a kind of pro­cras­tin­a­tion (if you keep tak­ing notes, you can put off the hard work of draft­ing). It will en­able you to eval­u­ate your evid­ence more rig­or­ously later be­cause you’ll have your ini­tial re­ac­tions to it. And it will get you think­ing early about the ar­gu­ment you will even­tu­ally make.

8.3.1  你的搜查令合理吗？

8.3.1  Is Your War­rant Reas­on­able?

当受众能够接受其结果源于具体情况时，该论证就显得合理。如果你的受众一开始就不接受你的论证，那么你就必须说服他们接受它。将其视为自身论证中的一个主张，并由其自身的理由和证据加以支持：

A war­rant seems reas­on­able when an audi­ence can ac­cept that its con­sequence fol­lows from its cir­cum­stance. If your audi­ence won’t ac­cept your war­rant on its face, then you have to con­vince them to ac­cept it by treat­ing it as a claim in its own ar­gu­ment, sup­por­ted by its own reas­ons and evid­ence:

十八世纪初的新英格兰，遗嘱会列出贵重的家居用品，因此，如果遗嘱中没有提及某件物品，则表明立遗嘱人并不拥有该物品。_迈尔斯和温恩（2018）的研究证实了这一点。_他们对十八、十九世纪美国继承习俗的研究表明_……

In early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, wills lis­ted valu­able house­hold ob­jects, so when a will fails to men­tion such an ob­ject, the test­ator did not own one._{war­rant/claim} Myles and Winn (2018) con­firm that to be the case._reason Their study of in­her­it­ance prac­tices in eight­eenth- and nine­teenth-cen­tury Amer­ica shows that . . ._evid­ence

8.3.2  您的授权是否足够有限？

8.3.2  Is Your War­rant Suf­fi­ciently Lim­ited?

大多数搜查令只有在一定范围内才合理。例如，关于钟表所有权的搜查令就过于僵化，因为它似乎不允许任何例外情况：

Most war­rants are reas­on­able only within cer­tain lim­its. For ex­ample, the war­rant about clock own­er­ship is too ri­gid be­cause it seems to al­low no ex­cep­tions:

十八世纪初的新英格兰，遗嘱会列出贵重的家居用品，因此，如果遗嘱中没有提及某件物品，则表示立遗嘱人并不拥有该物品。

In early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, wills lis­ted valu­able house­hold ob­jects, so when a will fails to men­tion such an ob­ject, the test­ator did not own one.

如果加上限定条件，或许会显得更合理一些：

It might seem more plaus­ible if it were qual­i­fied:

在十八世纪初的新英格兰，遗嘱通常会列出主人认为特别珍贵的家居用品，因此，如果遗嘱中没有提及此类物品，则立遗嘱人可能没有该物品。

In early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, wills usu­ally lis­ted house­hold ob­jects con­sidered es­pe­cially valu­able by their own­ers, so when a will fails to men­tion such an ob­ject, the test­ator prob­ably did not own one.

但是，一旦你开始在搜查令中使用“通常”、 “可能”和“尤其”之类的词语来限定搜查令，你就可能需要证明其例外情况并不排除你的理由和主张：通常和可能出现的频率是多少？钟表被认为特别珍贵？

But once you start qual­i­fy­ing a war­rant with words like usu­ally, prob­ably, and es­pe­cially, you may then have to show that its ex­cep­tions do not ex­clude your reason and claim: What fre­quency are usu­ally and prob­ably? Were clocks con­sidered es­pe­cially valu­able?

8.3.3  您的认股权证是否优于任何竞争认股权证？

8.3.3  Is Your War­rant Su­per­ior to Any Com­pet­ing War­rants?

您可能认为您的搜查令合理且范围足够有限，但其他搜查令可能与之竞争或取代它。以下是两种相互竞争的搜查令，两者都可能被认为是合理的：

You may think your war­rant is reas­on­able and suf­fi­ciently lim­ited, but other war­rants might com­pete with or su­per­sede it. Here are two com­pet­ing war­rants, both ar­gu­ably reas­on­able:

当人们认为某种医疗程序可能会对他们造成伤害时，他们有权拒绝。泰勒认为新冠疫苗会导致心肌炎，因此他有权拒绝接种。

当医疗决策涉及公共卫生问题时，国家有权对其进行监管。广泛接种新冠疫苗能使所有人更安全，因此国家可以强制政府雇员接种疫苗。

When people be­lieve a med­ical pro­ced­ure may harm them, they have a right to re­fuse it. Taylor be­lieves that the COVID-19 vac­cine causes myocarditis, so he has a right to re­fuse it.

When med­ical de­cisions con­cern mat­ters of pub­lic health, the state has a right to reg­u­late them. Wide­spread vac­cin­a­tion for COVID-19 makes every­one safer, so the state can com­pel gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees to re­ceive it.

哪份搜查令应该生效？这需要争论。

Which war­rant should pre­vail? That’s a mat­ter for ar­gu­ment.

有时可以通过限制相互冲突的认股权证来调和它们：

You can some­times re­con­cile com­pet­ing war­rants by lim­it­ing them:

当人们认为某种医疗程序可能会伤害自己时，他们有权拒绝， 只要这种拒绝不会危及他人的健康。

当医疗决定涉及公共卫生问题时，国家有权对其进行监管， 只要国家尽可能少地侵犯个人对其身体的控制权。

When people be­lieve a med­ical pro­ced­ure may harm them, they have a right to re­fuse it, so long as that does not jeop­ard­ize the health of oth­ers.

When med­ical de­cisions con­cern mat­ters of pub­lic health, the state has a right to reg­u­late them, so long as the state en­croaches as little as pos­sible on in­di­vidu­als’ right to con­trol what hap­pens to their bod­ies.

找到合适的平衡点，或者说找到任何平衡点，并非易事。事实上，所谓的“文化战争”争论（例如关于新冠疫苗接种要求的争论）之所以如此激烈且难以解决，是因为它们更多地关乎相互冲突的价值观和原则（即各自的理由），而非理由或证据。

Find­ing the right bal­ance, or any bal­ance at all, is not al­ways easy. In fact, so-called “cul­ture wars” ar­gu­ments (like those over COVID-19 vac­cine re­quire­ments) are of­ten so heated and in­tract­able be­cause they are more about com­pet­ing val­ues and prin­ciples (that is to say, war­rants) than about reas­ons or evid­ence.

8.3.4  您的授权书是否适用于此领域？

8.3.4  Is Your War­rant Ap­pro­pri­ate to This Field?

你的论证理由或许合理、范围足够窄，也优于其他理由，但它仍然必须被认为适用于该论证所涉及的领域。法学生在学习法律时会痛苦地发现，许多日常论证理由在法律论证中毫无用处。大多数人在进入法学院时都持有这种常识性的观念：

Your war­rant may be reas­on­able, suf­fi­ciently lim­ited, and su­per­ior to oth­ers, but it still has to be ac­cep­ted as ap­pro­pri­ate to the field to which an ar­gu­ment con­trib­utes. Law stu­dents get a pain­ful les­son in the law when they find that many every­day war­rants have no place in legal ar­gu­ments. Most start law school hold­ing this com­mon­sense be­lief:

当一个人受到不公正对待时，法律应当予以纠正。

When a per­son is wronged, the law should cor­rect it.

但法学生必须明白，法律依据可能凌驾于此类常识之上。例如：

But law stu­dents have to learn that legal war­rants may su­per­sede such com­mon­sense ideas. For ex­ample:

即使是无意的，忽视法律义务的人也必须承担后果。

When one ig­nores legal ob­lig­a­tions, even in­ad­vert­ently, one must suf­fer the con­sequences.

所以：

There­fore:

当老年房主忘记缴纳房产税时，其他人可以因拖欠税款而购买他们的房屋并将其驱逐。

When eld­erly home own­ers for­get to pay real es­tate taxes, oth­ers can buy their houses for back taxes and evict them.

法学生必须明白，从严格的法律意义上讲，正义不是他们认为合乎道德的结果，而是法律和法院支持的结果。

Law stu­dents must learn that justice, in a strictly legal sense, is not the out­come they be­lieve to be eth­ical but the one that the law and the courts sup­port.

8.3.5  您的保修单是否能够涵盖您的理由和索赔？

8.3.5  Is Your War­rant Able to Cover Your Reason and Claim?

最后，您必须确保您的理由和主张能够充分体现搜查令所涉的一般情况和一般后果。例如：

Fi­nally, you must be sure that your reason and claim are good in­stances of your war­rant’s gen­eral cir­cum­stance and gen­eral con­sequence. For ex­ample:

贝丝反对的并非艾哈迈德的理由是假的，而是这个理由不符合搜查令的一般情形。她并不否认缺席过那些员工会议；她只是否认缺席的原因是她做事没条理。（也许她只是觉得这些会议浪费时间。）在她看来，艾哈迈德的理由不在其搜查令的涵盖范围内，因此与本案无关。

Beth ob­jects not that Ahmed’s reason is false but that it is not a valid in­stance of his war­rant’s gen­eral cir­cum­stance. She doesn’t deny miss­ing those staff meet­ings; she only denies that the reason she’s miss­ing them is be­cause she’s un­or­gan­ized. (Maybe she just finds them a waste of time.) To her, Ahmed’s reason isn’t covered by his war­rant and is there­fore not rel­ev­ant.

贝丝也可能回应说，使用效率应用会让她变得不那么有条理：

Beth might also have re­spon­ded that us­ing a pro­ductiv­ity app would make her less or­gan­ized:

在这种情况下，她会反对艾哈迈德的说法不是搜查令后果的一个很好的例子，换句话说，这并非从他的理由中得出的结论：即使她没有条理，生产力应用程序也帮不了她。

In that case, she would be ob­ject­ing that Ahmed’s claim isn’t a good in­stance of the war­rant’s con­sequence, in other words, that it doesn’t fol­low from his reason: even if she were un­or­gan­ized, a pro­ductiv­ity app wouldn’t help her.

大多数现实世界的争论都与此类似，其中“算作”搜查令一般情形的实例，或具体后果的认定，往往需要辩论和协商，而非毫无争议的定义。艾哈迈德和贝丝对于何为“无组织”可能存在合理的分歧，因为他们永远不会……关于什么使一个几何图形成为三角形的问题。这正是为什么关于证据的争论会引发进一步的争论，并最终带来更深刻的理解的另一个原因。

Most real-world ar­gu­ments are like this one, in which what “counts” as an in­stance of a war­rant’s gen­eral cir­cum­stance or what fol­lows as a spe­cific con­sequence is a mat­ter of de­bate and ne­go­ti­ation rather than one of un­con­tested defin­i­tion. Ahmed and Beth might reas­on­ably dis­agree about what makes a per­son “un­or­gan­ized” as they never would about what makes a geo­met­rical fig­ure a tri­angle. This is yet an­other reason ar­gu­ments about war­rants lead to fur­ther ar­gu­ments and, ideally, to bet­ter un­der­stand­ing.

8.6.1  基于经验对认股权证提出质疑

8.6.1  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Ex­per­i­ence

我们根据自身经验或他人报告做出一些搜查令。

We base some war­rants on our ex­per­i­ence or on re­ports by oth­ers.

如果一个人习惯性说谎，我们就不应该信任他。

无风不起浪。

当政府债券收益率曲线倒挂时，经济衰退的可能性就很大。

When people ha­bitu­ally lie, we shouldn’t trust them.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

When the yield curve in gov­ern­ment bonds in­verts, a re­ces­sion is likely.

要质疑这些证据，你必须质疑经验的可靠性，但这通常并不容易，或者找到不能被当作特殊案例而忽略的反例。

To chal­lenge those war­rants, you must chal­lenge the re­li­ab­il­ity of the ex­per­i­ence, which is rarely easy, or find counter­examples that can­not be dis­missed as spe­cial cases.

8.6.2  基于授权对搜查令提出质疑

8.6.2  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Au­thor­ity

我们之所以相信某些人，是因为他们的专业知识、地位或个人魅力：

We be­lieve some people be­cause of their ex­pert­ise, po­s­i­tion, or cha­risma:

当权威人士X说Y时，Y就一定是Y。

When au­thor­ity X says Y, Y must be so.

挑战权威最简单也最友好的方式是指出，在相关问题上，权威人士掌握的证据不足，或者其观点超出了自身专业范围。而最激进的方式则是指出，该权威人士根本就不是权威。

The easi­est—and friend­li­est—way to chal­lenge an au­thor­ity is to ar­gue that, on the mat­ter in ques­tion, the au­thor­ity does not have all the evid­ence or reaches bey­ond its ex­pert­ise. The most ag­gress­ive way is to ar­gue that the source is in fact not an au­thor­ity at all.

8.6.3  对基于知识体系的搜查令提出质疑

8.6.3  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Sys­tems of Know­ledge

这些依据都基于一套定义、原则或理论体系：

These war­rants are backed by sys­tems of defin­i­tions, prin­ciples, or the­or­ies:

• 数学原理 ：两个奇数相加，结果是一个偶数。
• FROM MATH­EM­AT­ICS: When we add two odd num­bers, we get an even one.
• 生物学知识 ：当一个生物进行有性繁殖时，它的后代与父母双方都不同。
• FROM BIO­LOGY: When an or­gan­ism re­pro­duces sexu­ally, its off­spring dif­fer from either par­ent.
• 法律规定 ：当存在先例时，法官应当遵循先例。
• FROM LAW: When a pre­ced­ent ex­ists, a judge should fol­low it.

当你对这些搜查令提出质疑时，“事实”在很大程度上无关紧要。你必须要么挑战制度本身（这总是很困难的），要么证明该案件不符合搜查令的适用范围。

When you chal­lenge these war­rants, “facts” are largely ir­rel­ev­ant. You must either chal­lenge the sys­tem, al­ways dif­fi­cult, or show that the case does not fall un­der the war­rant.

8.6.4  挑战文化权威

8.6.4  Chal­len­ging Cul­tural War­rants

文化依据并非来自个人经验，而是来自整个文化的共同经验，因此似乎是不容置疑的“常识”：

Cul­tural war­rants are backed not by in­di­vidual ex­per­i­ence but by the com­mon ex­per­i­ence of an en­tire cul­ture and there­fore seem to be un­as­sail­able “com­mon sense”:

善有善报恶有恶报。

侮辱是正当的，报复是合理的。

那些杀不死你的，只会让你更强大。

What goes around comes around.

An in­sult jus­ti­fies re­tali­ation.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

这类搜查令可能会随着时间推移而改变，但变化缓慢。你可以通过提供相互竞争的搜查令或指出其文化特殊性来质疑它们。

War­rants like these may change over time, but slowly. You can chal­lenge them by of­fer­ing com­pet­ing war­rants or by not­ing their cul­tural spe­cificity.

8.6.5  质疑方法论依据

8.6.5  Chal­len­ging Meth­od­o­lo­gical War­rants

这些论据是普遍的思维模式，只有应用于具体案例才有意义。我们用它们来解释抽象推理（许多谚语都源于此）：

These war­rants are gen­eral pat­terns of thought with no con­tent un­til ap­plied to spe­cific cases. We use them to ex­plain ab­stract reas­on­ing (they are the source of many pro­verbs):

• 概括：当所有已知的 X 实例都具有品质 Y 时，所有 X 实例可能都具有品质 Y。（见过一个，就等于见过所有。）
• GEN­ER­AL­IZ­A­TION: When every known case of X has qual­ity Y, then all Xs prob­ably have qual­ity Y. (Seen one, seen them all.)
• 类比：如果 X 在大多数方面都像 Y，那么 X 在其他方面也会像 Y。（有其父必有其子。）
• ANA­LOGY: When X is like Y in most re­spects, then X will be like Y in other re­spects. (The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.)
• 征兆：当Y经常出现在X之前、期间或之后时，Y就是X的征兆。（手冷心暖。）
• SIGN: When Y reg­u­larly oc­curs be­fore, dur­ing, or after X, Y is a sign of X. (Cold hands, warm heart.)

哲学家们对这些论证提出了质疑，但在实际论证中，我们只质疑它们的适用性或指出限制条件：是的，我们可以将 X 类比为 Y，但前提是……

Philo­soph­ers have ques­tioned these war­rants, but in mat­ters of prac­tical ar­gu­ment­a­tion, we chal­lenge only their ap­plic­a­tion or point out lim­it­ing con­di­tions: Yes, we can ana­lo­gize X to Y, but not if . . .

8.6.6  基于信条对搜查令提出质疑

8.6.6  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Art­icles of Faith

有些权利不容置疑：托马斯·杰斐逊在《独立宣言》中写道：“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的，人人生而平等……”。其他权利包括：

Some war­rants are bey­ond chal­lenge: Thomas Jef­fer­son in­voked one when he wrote in the De­clar­a­tion of In­de­pend­ence, We hold these truths to be self-evid­ent, that all men are cre­ated equal. . . . Oth­ers in­clude

如果一项主张是基于自然法，那么它必然是正确的。

如果一项主张是基于神圣启示，那么它必然是真的。

When a claim is based on nat­ural law, it must be true.

When a claim is based on di­vine rev­el­a­tion, it must be true.

此类论据并非基于论证，而是基于拥护者的信念，因此几乎不可能用其他论据直接反驳。当论据被用来绕过辩论的来回往复，将某个特定主张置于不容置疑的境地时，我们就脱离了研究和研究论证的范畴。一个被假定为真——而非基于支持它的理由和证据而被判断为真或至少是合理的主张——不能被视为研究的成果。

Such war­rants are backed not by ar­gu­ments but by the con­vic­tion of those who es­pouse them, and they are there­fore al­most im­possible to con­test dir­ectly with com­pet­ing war­rants. When a war­rant is used to short-cir­cuit the give-and-take of ar­gu­ment­a­tion by pla­cing a par­tic­u­lar claim bey­ond dis­pute, we have left the do­main of re­search and re­search ar­gu­ment. A claim as­sumed to be true—rather than judged to be true or at least plaus­ible be­cause of the reas­ons and evid­ence sup­port­ing it—can­not be con­sidered a product of re­search.

▶ 小贴士：理由、证据和搜查令

▶ Quick Tip: Reas­ons, Evid­ence, and War­rants

你可以用两种方式来论证你的理由：提供证据支持，或者从确凿的证据中推导出理由。这两种方式会引出不同类型的论证。研究人员通常更信任第一种方式，所以尽可能地将你的理由建立在可靠的证据之上。比较以下两种论证：

You can jus­tify your reas­ons in two ways: by of­fer­ing evid­ence to sup­port them or by de­riv­ing them from a war­rant. Each of these ways leads to a dif­fer­ent kind of ar­gu­ment. Re­search­ers gen­er­ally trust the first kind more than the second, so base your reas­ons on solid evid­ence when you can. Com­pare these two ar­gu­ments:

我们应该尽一切努力阻止青少年边开车边发_短信因为分心驾驶是导致青少年死亡的主要原因之一_。根据美国疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）的数据，机动车事故造成了12至19岁人群超过三分之一的死亡，而边开车边发短信会成倍增加发生事故的可能性。此外，……_证据

我们应该尽一切努力阻止青少年边开车边发_短信因为这样做会增加他们发生事故的风险。_理由一：开车本身就很难，发短信会分散注意力；_理由二：支持理由一，我们知道，人们在执行复杂任务时如果分心，他们的表现就会受到影响_{。理由二与理由一相互关联。}

We should do what we can to dis­cour­age teen­agers from tex­ting and driv­ing_claim be­cause dis­trac­ted driv­ing is a lead­ing cause of teen­age deaths._reason Ac­cord­ing to the CDC, mo­tor vehicle ac­ci­dents are re­spons­ible for over a third of all fatal­it­ies among people aged 12–19, and tex­ting while driv­ing ex­po­nen­tially in­creases the like­li­hood that any driver will be in­volved in one. Moreover, . . ._evid­ence

We should do what we can to dis­cour­age teen­agers from tex­ting and driv­ing_claim be­cause when they do, their risk of hav­ing an ac­ci­dent in­creases._{reason 1} Driv­ing is dif­fi­cult and tex­ting a dis­trac­tion,_{reason 2 sup­port­ing reason 1} and we know that when people are dis­trac­ted while per­form­ing com­plex tasks, their per­form­ance suf­fers._{war­rant link­ing reason 2 and reason 1}

如果你和大多数人一样，你可能更倾向于第一种论点。这是因为它的论据并无争议（因此无需赘述），而且它的主张有确凿的证据支持。第二种论点也看似合理，因为理由一和理由二恰好体现了该论据的一般后果和条件。但大多数人仍然希望看到证据。

If you are like most people, you prob­ably pre­ferred the first of these ar­gu­ments. That’s be­cause its war­rant is not con­tro­ver­sial (and there­fore goes without say­ing) and its claim is sup­por­ted by a reason based on solid evid­ence. That second ar­gu­ment is plaus­ible be­cause reason 1 and reason 2 are good in­stances of that war­rant’s gen­eral con­sequence and con­di­tion. But most people still want evid­ence.

尤其需要指出的是，仅凭证据和理由是无法支持事实主张的（参见6.1 ）：

In par­tic­u­lar, you can’t sup­port a claim of fact (see 6.1) with a war­rant and reason alone:

开车发短信是导致青少年死亡的主要原因之一，_因为开车发短信会严重分散注意力。_{驾驶员分心}会增加发生严重甚至致命事故的风险。

Tex­ting and driv­ing is a lead­ing cause of teen­age deaths_{claim of fact} be­cause tex­ting while driv­ing is very dis­tract­ing._reason When drivers are dis­trac­ted, they in­crease their risk of hav­ing ser­i­ous, even fatal ac­ci­dents._war­rant

你是不是在想，我或许会相信，但我想要一些证据？这种合乎常理的反应很能说明问题。我们不能仅仅依靠推理就得出结论。得出“开车时发短信是导致青少年死亡的主要原因，甚至导致青少年死亡”这样的结论并不正确。除了少数领域——例如数学、哲学和神学的某些分支——证明一个事实主张的方法是，用证据证明你所主张的确实是事实。

Are you think­ing, I could be­lieve that, but I’d like some proof? That com­mon­sense re­sponse is telling. We can’t just reason our way to the con­clu­sion that tex­ting while driv­ing is a lead­ing cause of teen fatal­it­ies, or even that it causes teen fatal­it­ies at all. Ex­cept in a few fields—some branches of math­em­at­ics, philo­sophy, theo­logy—the way to demon­strate a claim of fact is to show with evid­ence that what you are claim­ing is, in fact, the case.

教训是：只要有可能，就不要依靠基于理由的复杂推理，而要依靠确凿的证据。

The les­son is this: whenever you can, rely not on elab­or­ate lines of reas­on­ing based on war­rants but on hard evid­ence.

9.4.1  选择回应的内容

9.4.1  Choos­ing What to Re­spond To

为了缩小备选方案和反对意见的范围，请考虑以下优先事项：

To nar­row your list of al­tern­at­ives and ob­jec­tions, con­sider these pri­or­it­ies:

• ▪ 你可以反驳的、看似合理的弱点指控
• ▪  plaus­ible charges of weak­nesses that you can re­but
• ▪ 您所在领域中重要的其他论证思路
• ▪  al­tern­at­ive lines of ar­gu­ment im­port­ant in your field
• ▪ 观众希望看到的替代结论
• ▪  al­tern­at­ive con­clu­sions that an audi­ence wants to be true
• ▪ 观众知晓的替代证据
• ▪  al­tern­at­ive evid­ence that an audi­ence knows
• ▪ 你必须回应的重要反例
• ▪  im­port­ant counter­examples that you have to ad­dress

寻找机会重申你的论点。例如，如果听众可能误解了你的论点范围，请承认他们的疑虑，并通过澄清来提醒他们你的观点：

Look for op­por­tun­it­ies to re­it­er­ate parts of your ar­gu­ment. For ex­ample, if an audi­ence might mis­con­strue your ar­gu­ment’s scope, ac­know­ledge their con­cern and use your cla­ri­fic­a­tion to re­mind them of your point:

养殖鱼类中重金属污染确实令人担忧，但我们的研究重点是野生捕捞鱼类的营养价值……

There is reason to worry about heavy metal con­tam­in­a­tion in some farmed fish, but our study fo­cuses on the nu­tri­tional value of wild-caught . . .

或者，如果你的听众可能想到与你的方案相近的替代方案，那就利用这一点来强调你的方案的优点：

Or if your audi­ence might think of an al­tern­at­ive solu­tion close to yours, use it to em­phas­ize the vir­tues of your solu­tion:

大多数研究者认为，规则和其他形式的正式写作指导非但不能提高写作水平，反而会降低写作效率，因为写作“是一种无意识的意义建构行为，而非有意识地遵循规则的过程”。这在写作过程的某些方面是正确的：作者在撰写句子时不应该参考规则。但写作不仅涉及起草，还包含许多有意识的过程。本文将展示哪些正式指导对写作的有意识层面有效，哪些无效……

Most re­search­ers ar­gue that rules and other forms of formal writ­ing ad­vice de­grade rather than im­prove per­form­ance be­cause writ­ing “is a non-con­scious act of mak­ing mean­ing, not a con­scious pro­cess of fol­low­ing rules.” That is true for parts of the pro­cess: writers should not con­sult rules as they draft sen­tences. But writ­ing in­volves not just draft­ing but many con­scious pro­cesses as well. What we show here is what kinds of formal ad­vice do and do not work for con­scious as­pects of writ­ing. . . .

最后，要承认一些可能特别吸引观众的选择，但前提是你能做出实质性的回应，而不是轻视它们。

Fi­nally, ac­know­ledge al­tern­at­ives that may par­tic­u­larly ap­peal to your audi­ence but only if you can re­spond sub­stant­ively, without ap­pear­ing to brush them aside.

9.4.2  承认论点中的不足

9.4.2  Ac­know­ledging Weak­nesses in Your Ar­gu­ment

如果你发现论证中存在无法弥补的漏洞，可以尝试重新定义问题或重构论证以规避它。但如果实在无法做到，你将面临一个艰难的抉择。你可以选择忽略这个漏洞，希望听众不会注意到。但这并不诚实。如果他们注意到了，就会质疑你的能力；如果他们认为你试图掩盖漏洞，就会质疑你的诚实。我们的建议或许听起来有些天真，但却行之有效。坦诚地承认问题，并做出回应。

If you dis­cover a weak­ness in your ar­gu­ment that you can­not fix, try to re­define your prob­lem or re­build your ar­gu­ment to avoid it. But if you can­not, you face a tough de­cision. You could just ig­nore the weak­ness and hope your audi­ence doesn’t no­tice it. But that’s dis­hon­est. If they do no­tice it, they will doubt your com­pet­ence, and if they think you tried to hide it, they will ques­tion your hon­esty. Our ad­vice may seem na­ive, but it works. Can­didly ac­know­ledge the is­sue and re­spond that

• ▪ 你的论点其余部分足以弥补这一不足。
• ▪  the rest of your ar­gu­ment more than com­pensates for the weak­ness.
• ▪ 虽然这个弱点很严重，但更多的研究将会找到克服它的方法。
• ▪  while the weak­ness is ser­i­ous, more re­search will show a way around it.
• ▪ 虽然这个缺陷使得我们无法完全接受你的说法，但你的论证为这个问题提供了重要的见解，并指出了一个更好的答案应该具备哪些特征。
• ▪  while the weak­ness makes it im­possible to ac­cept your claim fully, your ar­gu­ment of­fers im­port­ant in­sight into the ques­tion and sug­gests what at­trib­utes a bet­ter an­swer would have.

有时，研究人员会化失败为成功，他们将自己想要支持但未能支持的论点视为一个其他人可能认为合理的假设。然后，他们会证明这个假设是不合理的：

Oc­ca­sion­ally re­search­ers turn fail­ure into suc­cess by treat­ing a claim they wanted to sup­port but couldn’t as a hy­po­thesis that oth­ers might find reas­on­able. Then they show why it isn’t:

人们或许会认为，当陪审员听到的案件事实侧重于受害者的痛苦时，他们更有可能指责被告。毕竟，这是原告律师的惯用伎俩，也是我们预期研究结果会证实的。但事实上，我们发现两者之间并无关联……

It might seem that when jur­ors hear the facts of a case in a form that fo­cuses on vic­tims’ suf­fer­ing, they will be more likely to blame the ac­cused. That is, after all, the stand­ard prac­tice of plaintiffs’ law­yers and what we ex­pec­ted our re­search to af­firm. But in fact, we found no cor­rel­a­tion between . . .

9.4.3  承认你无法回答的问题

9.4.3  Ac­know­ledging Ques­tions You Can’t An­swer

初学者有时试图在某个主题上占据绝对主导地位，提出一个不容置疑、唯有完全赞同的论点。这是个误区。经验丰富的研究人员明白，研究的目标通常是增进研究群体的集体理解，推动对话持续进行。事实上，最具启发性的研究往往不是回答现有问题，而是提出我们尚未想到的新问题。对于解决概念性问题的研究而言，这一点尤为重要，但对于应用研究也同样适用。

Be­gin­ning re­search­ers some­times aim to have the last word on a topic, to make an ar­gu­ment that al­lows for no re­sponse but total agree­ment. That’s a mis­take. Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers know that the goal of re­search is usu­ally to ad­vance the col­lect­ive un­der­stand­ing of a re­search com­munity, to keep its con­ver­sa­tion go­ing. In fact, the most stim­u­lat­ing re­search is of­ten that which provides not an­swers to ex­ist­ing ques­tions but new ques­tions we haven’t yet thought to ask. This is es­pe­cially true for re­search ad­dress­ing con­cep­tual prob­lems, but it can be true for ap­plied re­search as well.

与其假装自己掌握了所有答案，不如坦诚地面对仍然存在的问题，这样有见识的听众会更认可你的论点，也会更尊重你这个人。

A know­ledge­able audi­ence will think bet­ter of your ar­gu­ment and of you if, rather than pre­tend­ing you have all the an­swers, you are can­did about ques­tions that still re­main.

9.6.1  承认反对意见和替代方案

9.6.1  Ac­know­ledging Ob­jec­tions and Al­tern­at­ives

用能够体现你对反对意见或替代方案重视程度的语言来回应。以下是一些建议。

Ac­know­ledge an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive in lan­guage that shows how much weight you give it. Here are some op­tions.

1. 1. 你可以用“尽管如此”、“不管怎样”或“尽管如此”来淡化反对意见或替代方案：

   1. 尽管市长声称她想降低房产税，_但对她最新预算提案的_回应
   2. though、while和even though 的用法相同：
   3. 尽管一些中小型银行倒闭，但零售银行业_{整体依然保持强劲势头……回应}
   4. 2. 你可以用seem、appear、may或could等词语，或者用 plausibly、 justifiably 、 reasonablely 、surprisingly甚至certain 等副词来间接表示认可：
   5. 在甘地的个人日记中，他表现出一些看似临床抑郁症的症状_。但那些观察过他的人……_回应
   6. 这项提议或许有一定价值，_{我们承认这一点，但我们}……_回应
   7. 3. 你可以将反对意见或替代方案归因于未具名的来源，这会增加一些可信度：
   8. 人们很容易认为税收应该……（承认这_一点）_。但还有另一种解释/论证思路/解释/可能性。
   9. 一些证据（可能/或许/可以/可以/确实）表明我们应该……，承认这一点，_但是……_回应
   10. 4. 你可以将反对意见或替代方案归因于一般的对话者，从而赋予其更大的分量：
   11. 有些人可能会说/认为/争论/声称/指责/反对碳捕获技术并非……_承认但事实上……_回应
   12. 尽管[一些研究人员/评论家/学者]_认为……，但我们的研究表明……
   13. 请注意，如果您过早或过度贬低您不同意的观点，或者尤其是持有这些观点的人，您可能会削弱您的信誉和论点。
   14. 这种不切实际的说法是……
   15. 一些天真的研究人员声称……
   16. 这位经常粗心大意的历史学家甚至声称……
   17. 批评应该留到回应时再说，而且要针对作品本身，而不是针对个人。
   18. 5. 你可以用自己的声音承认反对意见或替代方案，使用“我”或“我们”，被动语态动词，或者使用诸如“诚然”、 “肯定” 、“当然”等词语或短语，以此承认其某种合理性：
   19. 我理解/知道/意识到，进步人士相信……_{承认但……回应}
   20. 热泵比天然气炉更高效，这是事实。然而_……
   21. 必须承认，没有确凿的_证据证明……然而，……
   22. [诚然/当然/承认/属实/毋庸置疑/当然]，亚当斯声称……_承认然而……_回应
   23. 我们[会/可以/可能/也许][说/认为/声称/认为]诸如免费心理健康筛查之类的项目可能会阻碍 ……_{承认这一点，但}这些影响被……_{回应所抵消。}

2. 1. You can down­play an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive by in­tro­du­cing it with des­pite, re­gard­less of, or not­with­stand­ing:

   1. [Des­pite/Re­gard­less of/Not­with­stand­ing] the mayor’s claims that she wants to re­duce prop­erty taxes,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} her latest budget pro­pos­als sug­gest that . . ._re­sponse
   2. Use al­though, while, and even though in the same way:
   3. [Al­though/While/Even though] Even though some smal­ler and mid­size banks have failed,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} the re­tail bank­ing sec­tor as a whole re­mains strong . . ._re­sponse
   4. 2. You can sig­nal an ac­know­ledg­ment in­dir­ectly with seem, ap­pear, may, or could, or with an ad­verb like plaus­ibly, jus­ti­fi­ably, reas­on­ably, sur­pris­ingly, or even cer­tainly:
   5. In his per­sonal journ­als, Gandhi ex­presses what [seem/ap­pear] to be symp­toms of clin­ical de­pres­sion._{ac­know­ledg­ment} But those who ob­served him . . ._re­sponse
   6. This pro­posal [may have/plaus­ibly has] some merit,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but we . . ._re­sponse
   7. 3. You can at­trib­ute an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive to an un­named source, which gives it a little weight:
   8. It is easy to [think/ima­gine/say/claim/ar­gue] that taxes should . . ._{ac­know­ledg­ment} But there is [an­other/al­tern­at­ive/pos­sible] [ex­plan­a­tion/line of ar­gu­ment/ac­count/pos­sib­il­ity]._re­sponse
   9. Some evid­ence [might/may/can/could/does] [sug­gest/in­dic­ate/point to/lead some to think] that we should . . . ,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but . . ._re­sponse
   10. 4. You can at­trib­ute an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive to a gen­eric in­ter­locutor, giv­ing it more weight:
   11. There are [some/many/a few] who [might/may/could/would] [say/think/ar­gue/claim/charge/ob­ject] that car­bon cap­ture tech­no­lo­gies are not . . ._{ac­know­ledg­ment} But, in fact, . . ._re­sponse
   12. Al­though [some re­search­ers/crit­ics/schol­ars] have ar­gued that . . . ,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} our re­search shows . . .
   13. Note that you can weaken your ethos and your case if you pre­ma­turely or ex­cess­ively den­ig­rate views you dis­agree with or, es­pe­cially, those who hold them.
   14. The ill-con­ceived claim that . . .
   15. Some na­ive re­search­ers have claimed that . . .
   16. The of­ten-care­less his­tor­ian has even claimed that . . .
   17. Save cri­ti­cism for the re­sponse, and dir­ect it at the work rather than the per­son.
   18. 5. You can ac­know­ledge an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive in your own voice, us­ing I or we, a pass­ive verb, or a word or phrase such as ad­mit­tedly, gran­ted, to be sure, and so on, which con­cedes it some valid­ity:
   19. I [un­der­stand/know/real­ize] that pro­gress­ives be­lieve . . . ,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but . . ._re­sponse
   20. It is [true/pos­sible/likely] that heat pumps are more ef­fi­cient than nat­ural-gas fur­naces._{ac­know­ledg­ment} How­ever, . . ._re­sponse
   21. It [must/should/can] be [ad­mit­ted/ac­know­ledged/noted/con­ceded] that no good evid­ence proves that . . ._{ac­know­ledg­ment} Nev­er­the­less, . . .
   22. [Gran­ted/Cer­tainly/Ad­mit­tedly/True/To be sure/Of course], Adams has claimed . . ._{ac­know­ledg­ment} How­ever, . . ._re­sponse
   23. We [would/could/can/might/may] [say/ar­gue/claim/think] that pro­grams such as free men­tal health screen­ings might dis­cour­age . . . ,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but these ef­fects are out­weighed by . . ._re­sponse

9.6.2  回应反对意见和替代方案

9.6.2  Re­spond­ing to Ob­jec­tions and Al­tern­at­ives

你的回应可以以表示不同意见的词语或短语开头，例如“但是”、“然而”或“另一方面”。如果你还没有解释你回应的依据，你可能需要用自身的理由，甚至一个完整的从属论证来支持它。

Be­gin your re­sponse with a term or phrase that sig­nals dis­agree­ment, such as but, how­ever, or on the other hand. If you haven’t already ex­plained the basis of your re­sponse, you may have to sup­port it with its own reason or even with a com­plete sub­or­din­ate ar­gu­ment.

你可以用各种方式回应，从委婉到直率不等。

You can re­spond in ways that range from tact­ful to blunt.

1. 1. 你可能会后悔的不是信息来源不明，而是自己没有完全理解：

   1. 但是[我不太明白/我很难理解/我不明白] X 是如何声称，当……_回应
   2. 2. 或者你可以指出，存在一些尚未解决的问题：
   3. 但这里还有其他问题 ……/但仍然存在 ……_响应的问题
   4. 3. 你可以采取更强硬的回应，声称对方承认的立场无关紧要或不可靠：
   5. 但即便这种观点很有见地，_{承认这一点也[忽略/与当前}问题无关/不相干] 。
   6. 但[证据/推理] [不可靠/站不住脚/薄弱] _。
   7. 但这种论点[站不住脚/站不住脚/混乱/过于简单_]。
   8. _但这种论点忽略了关键因素。
   9. 你必须决定回应的措辞应该有多直白。如果某个替代方案显然是错误的，那就直接指出来，但再次强调，重点要放在工作本身，而不是人身上。
   10. 4. 当你认为其他研究人员似乎没有认真考虑某个问题时，通常应该礼貌地指出来。以下是一些例子：
   11. 史密斯的证据固然重要，_{我们承认这一点，但我们 必须}审视所有可用的证据。
   12. 这解释了部分问题，_{也承认了这一点，但问题} 过于复杂，无法用单一的解释来_概括
   13. 这一原则在很多情况下都成立，_但 并非所有_{情况都如此}。

2. 1. You can re­gret not that the source is un­clear, but that you don’t en­tirely un­der­stand:

   1. But [I do not quite un­der­stand how/I find it dif­fi­cult to see how/It is not clear to me how] X can claim that, when . . ._re­sponse
   2. 2. Or you can note that there are un­settled is­sues:
   3. But there are other is­sues here . . . /But there re­mains the prob­lem of . . ._re­sponse
   4. 3. You can re­spond more force­fully, claim­ing the ac­know­ledged po­s­i­tion is ir­rel­ev­ant or un­re­li­able:
   5. But as in­sight­ful as that may be,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} it [ig­nores/is ir­rel­ev­ant to/does not bear on] the is­sue at hand._re­sponse
   6. But the [evid­ence/reas­on­ing] is [un­re­li­able/shaky/thin]._re­sponse
   7. But the ar­gu­ment is [un­ten­able/weak/con­fused/simplistic]._re­sponse
   8. But the ar­gu­ment [over­looks/ig­nores/misses] key factors._re­sponse
   9. You have to de­cide how blunt your re­sponse should be. If an al­tern­at­ive seems ob­vi­ously wrong, say so, but again fo­cus on the work rather than the per­son.
   10. 4. When you think an­other re­searcher seems to have not thought through an is­sue care­fully, you usu­ally should say so civilly. Here are a few pos­sib­il­it­ies:
   11. Smith’s evid­ence is im­port­ant,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but we must look at all the avail­able evid­ence._re­sponse
   12. That ex­plains some of the prob­lem,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but it is too com­plex for a single ex­plan­a­tion._re­sponse
   13. That prin­ciple holds in many cases,_{ac­know­ledg­ment} but not in all._re­sponse

▶ 小贴士：三种可预见的争论

▶ Quick Tip: Three Pre­dict­able Dis­agree­ments

你的听众中至少有一部分人可能会想到以下三种替代方案。

There are three kinds of al­tern­at­ives that at least some mem­bers of your audi­ence are likely to think of.

1. 1.除了你声称的原因之外，还有其他原因。如果你的论点是关于因果关系，请记住，任何结果都不可能只有一个原因，反之亦然。如果你认为 X 导致 Y，每个人都会想到其他原因。蜜蜂种群的崩溃可能是由于杀虫剂的使用，但了解蜜蜂的人还可以列出其他可能的因素，包括栖息地丧失、疾病、转基因作物和寄生虫。因此，如果你只关注众多原因中的一个，也要承认其他原因的存在。如果你觉得听众可能认为某些原因比你给予的更多关注，也要承认这种观点，并解释你为什么弱化了它。
2. 1. There are causes in ad­di­tion to the one you claim. If your ar­gu­ment is about cause and ef­fect, re­mem­ber that no ef­fect has a single cause and no cause has a single ef­fect. If you ar­gue that X causes Y, every­one will think of other causes. Hon­ey­bee colon­ies may be col­lapsing be­cause of pesti­cide use, but someone know­ledge­able about hon­ey­bees could also list other pos­sible factors, in­clud­ing loss of hab­itat, dis­ease, ge­net­ic­ally mod­i­fied crops, and para­sites. So if you fo­cus on one cause out of many, ac­know­ledge the oth­ers. And if you feel your audi­ence might think that some cause de­serves more at­ten­tion than you give it, ac­know­ledge that view and ex­plain why you de-em­phas­ized it.
3. 2.那么这些反例呢？无论你的证据多么充分，一些持怀疑态度的听众很可能会想到一些例外情况和反例，他们认为这些反例会削弱你的论点。因此，你必须首先考虑这些反例，承认那些比较合理的反例，尤其是一些生动的例子，然后解释为什么你认为它们不像那些怀疑论者认为的那样具有破坏性。当你对气候变化等变化范围很大的现象提出论断时，尤其要谨慎。不了解统计推理的人会关注异常情况，即使它符合正态分布：迈阿密寒冷的七月四日并不能反驳气候变化的说法，正如蒙特利尔温暖的元旦也不能证明气候变化的说法一样。
4. 2. What about these counter­examples? No mat­ter how rich your evid­ence, some skep­tical mem­bers of your audi­ence are likely to think of ex­cep­tions and counter­examples that they be­lieve un­der­mine your ar­gu­ment. So you must think of them first, ac­know­ledge the more plaus­ible ones, es­pe­cially if they are vivid, and then ex­plain why you don’t con­sider them as dam­aging as those skep­tics might. Be par­tic­u­larly wary when you make claims about a phe­nomenon with a wide range of vari­ation, such as the cli­mate. People who do not un­der­stand stat­ist­ical reas­on­ing will fo­cus on an ab­er­rant case, even though it falls within a nor­mal dis­tri­bu­tion: a cold Fourth of July in Miami does not dis­prove a claim about cli­mate change, any more than a warm New Year’s Day in Montreal proves it.
5. 3.我对 X 的定义与你不同。对我来说，X 的意思是……如果读者接受你的定义，他们就更容易接受你的论点：如果你正在研究社交媒体“成瘾”，你的读者必须理解你使用这个词的含义。你是字面意义上的（即社交媒体会像香烟和某些毒品一样引发生理上的渴望），还是比喻意义上的（仅仅是指难以戒除）？你可以找到各种各样的定义，从字典里的几行字到医学参考书里的几页篇幅。但无论这些资料怎么说，人们人们往往会重新定义遇到的术语，以符合自己的观点。大型科技公司的高管辩称，社交媒体不会让人上瘾，因为人们可以随时停止使用；而批评者则认为，社交媒体之所以会让人上瘾，是因为很多人无法停止使用。

   当你的论证依赖于某个术语的含义时，请先定义该术语以支持你的论点，并为你的定义提供辅助论据。不要将字典定义视为权威（切勿以“根据韦氏词典， ‘成瘾’的意思是……”开头）。注意可能存在的、合理的替代定义，并加以说明。如果你使用了一个既有专业术语又有常用含义的术语（例如社会阶层或理论），请说明该常用含义，并解释你为何采用专业术语的含义。反之，如果你没有按照专家预期的方式使用某个专业术语，也请说明这一点，并解释你为何选择其他含义。

6. 3. I don’t define X as you do. To me, X means . . . It helps an audi­ence ac­cept your claim if they ac­cept your defin­i­tions: if you are re­search­ing “ad­dic­tion” to so­cial me­dia, your audi­ence must un­der­stand what you mean by that term. Do you mean it lit­er­ally (that is, that so­cial me­dia cre­ates phys­ical crav­ings like ci­gar­ettes and some drugs) or just meta­phor­ic­ally (that it’s merely hard to stop us­ing)? You can find defin­i­tions ran­ging from a few lines in a dic­tion­ary to pages in a med­ical ref­er­ence work. But re­gard­less of what those sources say, people tend to re­define terms they en­counter to suit their own views. Big-tech ex­ec­ut­ives have ar­gued that so­cial me­dia is not ad­dict­ive be­cause people are free to stop us­ing it; their crit­ics ar­gue that it is ad­dict­ive be­cause many people can’t.

   When your ar­gu­ment hinges on the mean­ing of a term, define it to sup­port your solu­tion and of­fer a sub­or­din­ate ar­gu­ment for your defin­i­tion. Don’t treat a dic­tion­ary defin­i­tion as au­thor­it­at­ive (never be­gin, “Ac­cord­ing to Web­ster’s, ‘ad­dic­tion’ means . . .”). Be aware of plaus­ible al­tern­at­ive defin­i­tions that you may need to ac­know­ledge. If you use a tech­nical term that also has a com­mon mean­ing (like so­cial class or the­ory), ac­know­ledge that com­mon mean­ing and ex­plain why you have ad­op­ted the tech­nical one. Con­versely, if you do not use a tech­nical term as an ex­pert would ex­pect you to, ac­know­ledge that and ex­plain why you’ve op­ted for an­other mean­ing.

10.2.1  拟定工作引言

10.2.1  Sketch a Work­ing In­tro­duc­tion

人们常建议作家最后再写引言，但实际上，我们大多数人都需要一个初步的引言来帮助我们走上正确的写作方向。因此，你需要准备两份引言：一份是现在写给自己看的草稿，另一份是之后写给读者的最终版本。最终的引言通常包含三个部分（参见第14章），所以你最好先画个草稿来预想一下。如果你已经按照我们之前的建议，那么你应该已经在故事板第一页的底部写下了你的主要论点。现在，请在它上面的页面上填写引出这个论点的内容。

Writers are of­ten ad­vised to write their in­tro­duc­tions last, but most of us need a work­ing in­tro­duc­tion to start us on the right track. Ex­pect to write your in­tro­duc­tion twice, then: a sketch for now, for your­self, and a fi­nal one later for your read­ers. That fi­nal in­tro­duc­tion will usu­ally have three parts (see chapter 14), so you might as well sketch your work­ing in­tro­duc­tion to an­ti­cip­ate them. If you have fol­lowed our earlier sug­ges­tion, you have writ­ten your main claim at the bot­tom of the first page of your story­board. Now fill in the page above it with what leads up to that claim.

10.2.2  确定贯穿整篇论文的关键术语

10.2.2  Identify Key Terms That Will Run Through Your Whole Pa­per

为了使文章条理清晰，读者必须能够识别贯穿全文的几个关键概念。但如果你对这些概念的表述五花八门，他们可能就无法理解。因此，请选择一些你打算反复使用的术语来指代你的概念。务必谨慎选择这些术语，因为它们既会反映你对读者的预期，也会影响读者对你文章的反应。例如，如果你面向的是广泛的读者群体，你可能会选择“果蝇”（fruit fly）而不是“黑腹果蝇”（Drosophila melanogaster）。有些作者担心术语重复过多。这种担忧不无道理，但你会比读者更明显地注意到这些重复，因为你已经清楚自己想要表达什么。事实上，经过深思熟虑的重复可以成为帮助读者理解你论点的有效策略。

For your pa­per to seem co­her­ent, read­ers must re­cog­nize a few key con­cepts run­ning through its parts. But they may not if you refer to those con­cepts in many dif­fer­ent ways. So choose terms for your con­cepts that you will use with some con­sist­ency. Make these choices care­fully be­cause your terms will both sig­nal how you ima­gine your audi­ence and af­fect how your audi­ence re­sponds to you. For ex­ample, if you are writ­ing for a broad audi­ence, you might opt for fruit fly rather than Dro­so­phila melano­gaster. Some writers worry about re­peat­ing terms too much. That’s fair, but you will no­tice that re­pe­ti­tion more than your read­ers will be­cause you already know what you are try­ing to say. In fact, thought­ful re­pe­ti­tion can be an ef­fect­ive strategy for help­ing read­ers fol­low your ar­gu­ment.

在你的笔记或故事板中查找与你的关键概念相关的术语，尤其是在你阐述论点及其意义的地方。尝试找出四五个最重要的术语。例如，假设你正在撰写一篇关于电子舞曲混音的文章。你的文章可能以“合理使用”这一法律概念为中心主题。但如果你在文章中使用过多相关术语，例如版权、创造力、合理使用、自由、知识产权、混音、版税等，读者可能会忽略这一点。这些术语数量过多，反而会掩盖你的核心主题。

Look in your notes or story­board for terms that name your key con­cepts, es­pe­cially where you state your claim and its sig­ni­fic­ance. Try to iden­tity the four or five terms that seem most im­port­ant. Sup­pose, for ex­ample, that you are writ­ing about mix­ing in elec­tronic dance mu­sic. Your pa­per might have as one or­gan­iz­ing theme the legal concept of “fair use.” But read­ers might miss it if you use too many re­lated terms in your pa­per: copy­right, cre­ativ­ity, fair use, free­dom, in­tel­lec­tual prop­erty, re­mix, roy­alty. In their sheer num­ber, they might ob­scure your lar­ger theme.

在撰写过程中，你可能会发现新的主题，也会放弃一些旧的主题，但如果你能始终牢记最重要的术语和概念，你的文章就会更加连贯。

As you draft, you may find new themes and drop some old ones, but you’ll write more co­her­ently if you keep your most im­port­ant terms and con­cepts in the front of your mind.

10.2.3  规划论文正文

10.2.3  Plan the Body of Your Pa­per

1. 1.勾勒背景并定义术语。在故事板的介绍页之后，添加一页来概述必要的背景信息。你可能需要定义术语、更详细地回顾研究、阐明你的问题、设定项目范围、将你的问题置于更广阔的历史或社会背景中等等。务必言简意赅。
2. 1. Sketch back­ground and define terms. After the in­tro­duc­tion page of your story­board, add a page on which you out­line ne­ces­sary back­ground. You may have to define terms, re­view re­search in more de­tail, spell out your prob­lem, set lim­its on your pro­ject, loc­ate your prob­lem in a lar­ger his­tor­ical or so­cial con­text, and so on. Keep it short.
3. 2.为论文的每个主要部分创建一个故事板页面。在每个页面的顶部，写下该部分其余内容所支持、展开或解释的观点。通常，这将是支持你主要论点的理由。
4. 2. Cre­ate a story­board page for each ma­jor sec­tion of your pa­per. At the top of each of these pages, write the point that the rest of that sec­tion sup­ports, de­vel­ops, or ex­plains. Usu­ally, this will be a reason sup­port­ing your main claim.
5. 3.找到合适的顺序。当你展开论证时（见7.1），你按照自己认为合理的方式排列了各个部分。现在，在规划时，你必须找到一个对读者来说也合理的顺序。考虑以下选项。前两个选项与你的主题相关：
   • ▪  分部分进行。如果你能将你的主题分解成各个部分，你就可以依次处理每个部分，但你仍然必须按照这些部分的功能关系、层级关系等方式对它们进行排序，以帮助读者理解它们。
   • ▪  按时间顺序。这是最简单的顺序：从早到晚或从原因到结果。

     接下来的六个选项是根据读者的知识和理解能力而定的。

   • ▪  由短到长，由简到繁。大多数读者倾向于先处理简单的问题，然后再去解决更复杂的问题。
   • ▪  从熟悉到陌生。大多数读者更倾向于先阅读熟悉的话题，然后再阅读新的话题。
   • ▪  从争议较小到争议较大。大多数读者更容易从同意的观点过渡到不同意的观点。
   • ▪  从重要到次要（或反之亦然）。大多数读者更喜欢先阅读更重要的理由（但如果这些理由放在最后，可能会更有影响力）。
   • ▪  先理解前面的内容，再理解后面的内容。读者可能需要先理解一些事件、原理、定义等等，才能理解其他内容。
   • ▪  先进行总体分析，再进行具体应用。读者可能需要先理解你的总体立场，才能明白你是如何将其应用于具体的文本、事件、情境等等的。
6. 3. Find a suit­able or­der. When you de­veloped your ar­gu­ment (see 7.1), you ordered its parts in a way that made sense to you. Now, as you plan, you must fig­ure out an or­der that will make sense to your read­ers. Con­sider these op­tions. The first two are based on your topic:
   • ▪  Part-by-part. If you can break your topic into its parts, you can deal with each in turn, but you must still or­der those parts in a way that will help read­ers un­der­stand them—by their func­tional re­la­tion­ships, hier­archy, and so on.
   • ▪  Chro­no­lo­gical. This is the simplest: earlier to later or cause to ef­fect.

     These next six op­tions are based on your read­ers’ know­ledge and un­der­stand­ing.

   • ▪  Short to long, simple to com­plex. Most read­ers prefer to deal with simple is­sues be­fore they work through more com­plex ones.
   • ▪  More fa­mil­iar to less fa­mil­iar. Most read­ers prefer to read about more fa­mil­iar is­sues be­fore they read about new ones.
   • ▪  Less con­test­able to more con­test­able. Most read­ers move more eas­ily from what they agree with to what they don’t.
   • ▪  More im­port­ant to less im­port­ant (or vice versa). Most read­ers prefer to read more im­port­ant reas­ons first (but those reas­ons may have more im­pact if they come last).
   • ▪  Earlier un­der­stand­ing to pre­pare for later un­der­stand­ing. Read­ers may have to un­der­stand some events, prin­ciples, defin­i­tions, and so on be­fore they can un­der­stand some­thing else.
   • ▪  Gen­eral ana­lysis fol­lowed by spe­cific ap­plic­a­tions. Read­ers may have to un­der­stand the out­lines of your over­all po­s­i­tion be­fore they can fol­low how you ap­ply it to spe­cific texts, events, situ­ations, and so on.

这些原则通常相辅相成：读者容易理解且认同的内容往往简短易懂。但这些原则也可能相互冲突：你可能需要决定是直接切入主题，还是先提供必要的背景信息。无论你选择哪种顺序，务必确保它能满足读者的需求，而不仅仅是反映你产生想法的过程。

Of­ten these prin­ciples co­oper­ate: what read­ers agree with and eas­ily un­der­stand might also be short and fa­mil­iar. But these prin­ciples may also con­flict: you may have to de­cide whether to lead with your main point or lead up to it with ne­ces­sary back­ground. Whatever or­der you choose, be sure it ad­dresses your read­ers’ needs and doesn’t just re­flect how your ideas oc­curred to you.

最后，在开始撰写初稿时，每个章节或段落的开头都要用一个词或短语来表明你选择的顺序：首先……，其次……  ；后来……，最后……  ；更重要的是……  ；一个更复杂的问题是……  ；因此……。如果这些提示语感觉不太自然，也不用担心。你可以稍后修改甚至删除它们。

Fi­nally, when you start to draft, be­gin each sec­tion or para­graph with a word or phrase that sig­nals the or­der you chose: First . . . , second . . . ; Later . . . , fi­nally . . . ; More im­port­ant . . . ; A more com­plex is­sue is . . . ; As a res­ult . . . Don’t worry if these sig­nals feel awk­ward. You can re­vise or even de­lete them later.

10.2.4  规划各章节和子章节

10.2.4  Plan Each Sec­tion and Sub­sec­tion

1. 1.在每个章节和子章节中突出显示关键术语。正如你的论文需要引言一样，它的每个章节也需要。我们之前已经告诉过你，要在每个章节的提纲页面顶部阐明其要点。现在，就像你挑选了贯穿整篇论文的关键术语一样，在你的提纲中突出显示那些能够将每个章节与其他章节区分开来的关键术语。如果你找不到这样的术语，请仔细观察该章节对整体的贡献。它可能贡献甚微，甚至毫无贡献。

   在撰写论文时，请使用这些关键词为每个章节创建标题。如果您所在领域的论文不使用标题，您可以从最终稿中删除它们。

2. 1. High­light the key terms in each sec­tion and sub­sec­tion. Just as your pa­per needs an in­tro­duc­tion, so does each of its sec­tions. Earlier we told you to state the point of each sec­tion at the top of its story­board page. Now, just as you picked out key terms to run through your whole pa­per, high­light in your story­board the ones that uniquely dis­tin­guish each sec­tion from all the oth­ers. If you can­not find such terms, look closely at how that sec­tion con­trib­utes to the whole. It may of­fer little or noth­ing.

   As you draft, use these key terms to cre­ate head­ings for each sec­tion. If pa­pers in your field do not use head­ings, you can re­move them from your last draft.

3. 2.指明证据、搜查令、确认和回应以及摘要的放置位置。将这些部分添加到每个章节的故事板页面中。它们可能还需要各自的论点来支撑。
   • ▪  证据。大多数章节主要由支持论点的证据构成。如果您有多个证据支持同一个论点，请以读者易于理解的方式进行排列。注意您可能需要解释证据的地方——证据的来源、可靠性以及它如何支持论点。
   • ▪  致谢与回应。设想读者可能会反对的观点，然后概述回应内容。回应可以包含子论点。至少要提出论点并给出理由（例如，“一些研究人员认为……，但我认为……因为……”）。他们可能还会提供证据，甚至对你的第一个回应提出第二个假设性的回应。
   • ▪  论据。一般来说，如果需要陈述论据，应在提出论点和支持理由之前先陈述。例如，如果以下论证是面向非伊丽莎白时代社会史专家，则需要提供论据：

   由于1580年牛津大学的大多数学生签署文件时只用了自己的名字和姓氏，_因此他们中的大多数必定是平民_。

   如果用搜查令的形式提出这个论点，那么对所有人（甚至专家）来说都会更清楚：

   在十六世纪末的英国，如果某人并非绅士而是平民，他不会在签名后加上“先生”或“先生”的头衔。 1580年，牛津大学的大多数_{学生签署文件时只用自己的名字和姓氏，因此他们}中的大多数必定是平民。

   如果你认为读者可能会质疑你的论证，请简要阐述一个支持该论证的论点。如果读者可能认为你的理由或主张并非该论证的有效例证，请简要阐述一个证明其有效性的论点。

4. 2. In­dic­ate where to put evid­ence, war­rants, ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses, and sum­mar­ies. Add these parts to the story­board page for each sec­tion. They may, in turn, need to be sup­por­ted by their own ar­gu­ments.
   • ▪  Evid­ence. Most sec­tions con­sist primar­ily of evid­ence sup­port­ing reas­ons. If you have sev­eral pieces of evid­ence sup­port­ing the same reason, ar­range them in a way that will make sense to read­ers. Note where you may have to ex­plain your evid­ence—where it came from, why it’s re­li­able, ex­actly how it sup­ports a reason.
   • ▪  Ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses. Ima­gine what read­ers might ob­ject to, then out­line a re­sponse. Re­sponses may be sub-ar­gu­ments with at least a claim and reas­ons (Some re­search­ers have said . . . , but I be­lieve . . . be­cause . . .). They may in­clude evid­ence and even a second re­sponse to an ima­gined re­sponse to your first re­sponse.
   • ▪  War­rants. Gen­er­ally speak­ing, if you need to state a war­rant, state it be­fore you of­fer its claim and sup­port­ing reason. The fol­low­ing ar­gu­ment, for ex­ample, needs a war­rant if it’s in­ten­ded for non-ex­perts in Eliza­bethan so­cial his­tory:

   Since most stu­dents at Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity in 1580 signed doc­u­ments with only their first and last names,_reason most of them must have been com­mon­ers._claim

   That ar­gu­ment is clearer to every­one (even ex­perts) when in­tro­duced by a war­rant:

   In late six­teenth-cen­tury Eng­land, when someone was not a gen­tle­man but a com­moner, he did not add “Mr.” or “Esq.” to his sig­na­ture._war­rant Most stu­dents at Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity in 1580 signed doc­u­ments with only their first and last names,_reason so most of them must have been com­mon­ers._claim

   If you think read­ers might ques­tion your war­rant, sketch an ar­gu­ment to sup­port it. If read­ers might think that your reason or claim isn’t a valid in­stance of the war­rant, sketch an ar­gu­ment show­ing that it is.

如果你的草稿篇幅较长，且包含大量日期、人名、事件或数字等“事实”，你可以在每个主要章节的结尾简要总结一下论证的进展。你已经论证了哪些内容？你的论证目前为止如何？如果在最终稿中这些总结显得生硬，那就删掉它们。

If your draft is long and “fact-heavy” with dates, names, events, or num­bers, you might briefly sum­mar­ize the pro­gress of your ar­gu­ment at the end of each ma­jor sec­tion. What have you es­tab­lished? How does your ar­gu­ment shape up so far? If in your fi­nal draft those sum­mar­ies seem clumsy, cut them.

10.2.5  拟定工作结论

10.2.5  Sketch a Work­ing Con­clu­sion

在故事板结论页的顶部再次陈述你的观点。之后，如果可以的话，用草图的形式概括其意义（对“那又怎样？ ”的另一种回答）。

State your point again at the top of a con­clu­sion page of your story­board. After it, if you can, sketch its sig­ni­fic­ance (an­other an­swer to So what?).

当你计划好引言、正文和结论并开始……在撰写草稿的过程中，你可能会发现你收集的所有笔记都用不上。但这并不意味着你浪费了时间。正如欧内斯特·海明威所说，当你舍弃那些你明知不错但不如你保留下来的精彩内容时，你就知道自己写得不错了。

As you plan your in­tro­duc­tion, body, and con­clu­sion and be­gin to draft, you may dis­cover that you can’t use all the notes you col­lec­ted. That doesn’t mean you wasted time. As Ern­est Hem­ing­way said, you know you’re writ­ing well when you dis­card stuff you know is good—but not as good as what you keep.

10.4.1  以感觉舒适的方式起草

10.4.1  Draft in a Way That Feels Com­fort­able

许多经验丰富的作家在绘制故事板的同时就开始写作。他们会先写一些草稿来探索自己的想法，然后根据这些发现来完善计划。他们知道，很多早期写作的内容最终都会被舍弃。探索性的写作可以帮助你发现从未想过的想法，但这需要时间。如果你有紧迫的截稿期限，最好在有了更清晰的计划之后再开始写作。

Many ex­per­i­enced writers be­gin to write as they fill up their story­boards. They use early drafts to ex­plore what they think, then re­fine their plans based on what they dis­cover. They know that much of that early writ­ing will not sur­vive. Ex­plor­at­ory draft­ing can help you dis­cover ideas you never ima­gined, but it takes time. If you are writ­ing to a tight dead­line, draft when you have a clearer plan.

许多作者写作速度很快：他们任由文字流淌，省略一些可以稍后补充的引语和数据，遇到瓶颈时就直接跳到前面的部分。如果记不清某个细节，他们会用“[？”标记，然后继续写，直到文思枯竭，再回头去查找。但快速写作的人也需要时间修改，所以如果你也想快速写作，那就尽早开始。

Many writers draft quickly: they let the words flow, omit­ting quo­ta­tions and data that they can plug in later, skip­ping ahead when they get stuck. If they don’t re­mem­ber a de­tail, they in­sert a “[?]” and keep writ­ing un­til they run out of gas, then go back to look it up. But quick drafters need time to re­vise, so if you draft quickly, start early.

有些作家只能慢工出细活：他们必须把上一句话都写好才能开始写下一句。为此，他们需要一个周密的计划。所以，如果你写作速度慢，那就创建一个详细的提纲或故事板。

Other writers can work only slowly and de­lib­er­ately: they have to get every sen­tence right be­fore they start the next one. To do that, they need a me­tic­u­lous plan. So if you draft slowly, cre­ate a de­tailed out­line or story­board.

大多数作家最有效的写作方法是快速起草、仔细修改，然后剔除无关内容。但你也可以用任何适合自己的方式写作。

Most writers work best when they draft quickly, re­vise care­fully, and toss what’s ir­rel­ev­ant. But draft in any way that works for you.

10.4.2  使用关键词和标题保持思路清晰

10.4.2  Use Keywords and Head­ings to Stay on Track

写作过程中一个难题是保持思路清晰。故事板有所帮助，但你也可以把关键术语放在手边，时不时地检查一下它们的使用频率，尤其是那些区分各个部分的术语。不过，不要让故事板或关键术语扼杀你的新思路。如果你发现自己思路偏离，那就顺着这个思路走下去，看看它会把你引向何方。你或许正走在一条通往有趣想法的道路上。

One prob­lem with draft­ing is stay­ing on track. A story­board helps, but you might also keep your key terms in front of you and, from time to time, check how of­ten you use them, es­pe­cially those that dis­tin­guish each sec­tion. But don’t let your story­board or key terms stifle fresh think­ing. If you find your­self wan­der­ing, fol­low the trail un­til you see where it takes you. You may be on the track of an in­ter­est­ing idea.

大多数领域发表的文章和论文都会使用标题和副标题来引导读者，我们也建议您在撰写文章时使用它们。每个标题或副标题都应包含与其章节或子章节相关的关键词：

Pub­lished art­icles and pa­pers in most fields use head­ings and sub­head­ings to ori­ent their read­ers, and we sug­gest that you use them also when you draft. Cre­ate each head­ing or sub­head­ing from words that are im­port­ant to its sec­tion or sub­sec­tion:

电子舞曲混音：知识产权与合理使用原则的界限

Re­mix­ing in Elec­tronic Dance Mu­sic: In­tel­lec­tual Prop­erty and the Lim­its of Fair Use

这些标题还能让你一目了然地了解文章结构，并在撰写过程中帮助你保持专注。修改时，你可以决定保留哪些标题，删除哪些。

Again, these head­ings also show the struc­ture of your pa­per at a glance and can keep you fo­cused as you draft. When you re­vise, you can de­cide which to keep and which to re­move.

▶ 小贴士：如何应对写作中的焦虑

▶ Quick Tip: Man­aging Anxi­ety as a Writer

我们都知道，写作会引发很多焦虑，而且这并非没有道理。写作很难：一位心理学家甚至将写作的认知难度比作下专家级的国际象棋。写作关乎个人：当我们写作时，即使是关于学术或专业主题，也难免会暴露一些自我——即便不是生活细节，至少也会流露出我们的思维习惯和思考方式。写作耗时：对大多数人来说，写好文章需要投入时间，而在紧迫的截稿期限下写作更是压力巨大。写作往往至关重要：作为学生和研究人员，我们的写作质量不仅对研究群体，也对我们自身有着重大影响——我们的成绩、论文发表、晋升，甚至工作都可能取决于此。

Writ­ing, we know, can pro­voke a lot of anxi­ety, and for good reas­ons. It’s hard: one psy­cho­lo­gist has com­pared its cog­nit­ive dif­fi­culty to that of play­ing ex­pert-level chess. It’s per­sonal: when we write, even about aca­demic and pro­fes­sional sub­jects, we in­ev­it­ably re­veal some­thing of ourselves—if not the de­tails of our lives, then at least our habits of mind and thought. It’s time-con­sum­ing: for most people, writ­ing well re­quires an in­vest­ment of time, and writ­ing un­der the pres­sure of tight dead­lines is stress­ful. It’s of­ten high stakes: the qual­ity of our writ­ing as stu­dents and re­search­ers has ma­jor con­sequences, not just for our re­search com­munit­ies but for ourselves—our grades, pub­lic­a­tions, pro­mo­tions, even jobs can de­pend on it.

写作焦虑也会带来严重的后果。它会加剧更广泛的心理健康问题和压力，如果您正面临这种情况，我们鼓励您寻求并利用现有的心理健康资源。焦虑会阻碍我们发挥最佳水平，甚至会导致我们做出鲁莽和不道德的选择：例如，许多抄袭者，无论是学生还是专业人士，并非因为他们认为抄袭没有错，而是因为在压力下为自己的选择寻找理由。

Writ­ing anxi­ety also has ser­i­ous con­sequences. It can ex­acer­bate broader men­tal health chal­lenges and pres­sures, and if that’s your situ­ation, we en­cour­age you to seek out and use the men­tal health re­sources avail­able to you. Anxi­ety can keep us from do­ing our best work. It can even lead us to make reck­less and un­eth­ical choices: for ex­ample, many of those who pla­gi­ar­ize, whether stu­dents or pro­fes­sion­als, do so not be­cause they see noth­ing wrong with it but be­cause they ra­tion­al­ize their choices un­der pres­sure.

以下是一些可能有帮助的建议。这些建议基于我们指导数千名作家的经验，以及我们自身克服写作焦虑的经历（我们自己也深受其扰——即使是在写这本书的时候！）：

Here are some tips that might help. They are based on our ex­per­i­ence teach­ing thou­sands of writers as well as our own per­sonal ex­per­i­ence with writ­ing anxi­ety (we struggle too—even when writ­ing this book!):

• ▪  给自己预留充足的时间。大多数人在规划任何项目时，都会低估所需时间。写作也不例外。所以，先做出最佳预估，然后再乘以二。
• ▪  Give your­self ad­equate time. When plan­ning any pro­ject, most people un­der­es­tim­ate how long it will take. The same is true for writ­ing. So make your best es­tim­ate, then double it.
• 将  大型抽象的任务分解成更小、更具体的任务。如果“写论文”这件事让你感到畏惧，那就把它分解成更容易完成的任务：制作故事板、撰写引言草稿、总结并回应参考文献、修改句子使其更清晰等等。
• ▪  Di­vide large and ab­stract tasks into smal­ler and more con­crete ones. If the pro­spect of “writ­ing a pa­per” feels daunt­ing, break it down to more man­age­able tasks: make a story­board, draft a pro­vi­sional in­tro­duc­tion, sum­mar­ize and re­spond to a source, edit your sen­tences for clar­ity, and so on.
• ▪  关注你写作的优势，而不是劣势。这条建议可能看起来有悖常理：我怎样才能写出一篇更好的论文？ 如果我没有发现并改正所有错误怎么办？提交之前，你当然应该对文章进行充分的编辑润色。但是，过度关注文章的不足之处不仅会令人沮丧，还会阻碍你充分发挥创意，创作出最好的作品。作为一名写作者，最重要的能力之一就是能够识别并利用草稿中的潜力点。
• ▪  Fo­cus on your writ­ing’s strengths, not its weak­nesses. This bit of ad­vice might seem coun­ter­in­tu­it­ive: How can I write a bet­ter pa­per if I don’t catch and fix all my mis­takes? Be­fore you sub­mit it, you should of course give your writ­ing a good ed­it­or­ial pol­ish­ing. But fo­cus­ing ob­sess­ively on a pa­per’s de­fi­cits is not just dis­cour­aging; it can also keep you from fully de­vel­op­ing your ideas and pro­du­cing your best work. One of the most im­port­ant abil­it­ies you can cul­tiv­ate as a writer is the abil­ity to re­cog­nize and then build on mo­ments of po­ten­tial in a draft.
• 不要  独自写作。尽可能与他人分享你的作品。你会从他们的反馈中受益，而且仅仅是讨论就能激发你的思考。
• ▪  Don’t go it alone. Whenever you can, share your writ­ing with oth­ers. You will be­ne­fit from their re­sponses, and just talk­ing it through will stim­u­late your think­ing.
• ▪  设定合理的标准。我们都希望自己的文章尽善尽美，但没有人的文章是完美的。记住那句老话：不要让完美成为优秀的敌人。如果你觉得必须把每个句子或段落都写得完美无缺才能继续写下一个，你就有可能陷入写作瘫痪。不妨在写作过程中尝试一些非正式的表达方式。总之，要知道，每个研究人员为了完成工作，都会在完美主义的框架内做出一些妥协。
• ▪  Ad­opt reas­on­able stand­ards. We all want our writ­ing to be as good as it can be, but no one’s writ­ing is per­fect. Re­mem­ber the say­ing Don’t let the per­fect be the en­emy of the good. If you feel that you must make every sen­tence or para­graph per­fect be­fore you move to the next one, you risk para­lysis. It helps if you write in­form­ally along the way. In any event, know that every re­searcher com­prom­ises on per­fec­tion to get the job done.
• ▪  当你陷入写作瓶颈时，要意识到这一点，然后尝试其他方法。无论你多么努力，都无法将文字落笔或显示在屏幕上，这种感觉有一个专门的名称：写作障碍。许多缺乏经验的写作者希望自己能够硬着头皮克服它，但这很少奏效。写作障碍的一个原因是“锚定效应”这种认知现象。这是一种认知偏差，它让我们难以摆脱最初浮现的想法或措辞，转而想象其他可能性。你无法仅仅通过更加努力来克服锚定效应，因为那样只会强化它。相反，你必须退后一步，有意识地敞开心扉，接受其他可能性。你可以休息一下（二十分钟、一天两天、几个月甚至几年，具体取决于你的项目和你拥有的时间），让你的潜意识来思考这个问题。你可以和别人讨论你的论文，或者讨论一些与论文无关的事情。你甚至可以利用生成式人工智能：输入让你卡住的段落，并请求替代方案——但如果你这样做，请务必承认这种做法并向你的老师说明（参见第 3 章末尾的快速提示）。
• ▪  Re­cog­nize when you are stuck, and then do some­thing dif­fer­ent. There’s a name for that feel­ing of not be­ing able to put words down on a page or up on a screen, no mat­ter how hard you try: writer’s block. Many in­ex­per­i­enced writers hope they can just push through it, but that rarely works. One cause of writer’s block is the cog­nit­ive phe­nomenon of “an­chor­ing.” It’s a kind of cog­nit­ive bias that keeps us from let­ting go of the first idea or phras­ing that oc­curs to us and ima­gin­ing oth­ers. You can’t com­bat an­chor­ing just by try­ing harder, be­cause that only re­in­forces it. In­stead, you have to step back and pur­pose­fully open your mind to al­tern­at­ives. You can take a break (of twenty minutes, or a day or two, or months or years, de­pend­ing on your pro­ject and the time you have) to let your un­con­scious mind work on the prob­lem. You can talk with oth­ers about your pa­per or even some­thing un­re­lated to it. You can even lever­age gen­er­at­ive AI: plug in the pas­sage that’s got you stuck and ask for al­tern­at­ives—but if you do, be sure to ac­know­ledge this prac­tice and clear it with your teacher (see the Quick Tip at the end of chapter 3).
• ▪  接受你并非你的论文这一事实。对许多人来说，写作——即使是我们在本文中讨论的那种学术和专业写作——都并非易事。写作——是极其私人的事情。但将文章的质量与你的能力或个人价值混为一谈，可能会让你感到沮丧。我们建议你不要把任何一篇作品视为自身延伸，而应将其视为你精心打造的一件作品：尽你所能做到最好，然后放手。
• ▪  Ac­cept that you are not your pa­per. For many, writ­ing—even the kinds of aca­demic and pro­fes­sional writ­ing we ad­dress in this book—is deeply per­sonal. But con­fus­ing the qual­ity of your pa­per with your ca­pa­cit­ies or value as a per­son can be de­bil­it­at­ing. We sug­gest that you re­gard any piece of writ­ing not as an ex­ten­sion of your­self but as a product you craft: do your best to make it as good as pos­sible, then let it go.
• 最后  ，如果条件允许，不妨去写作中心看看。大多数高校、许多高中以及越来越多的公共图书馆和工作场所都设有写作中心，在那里你可以获得关于写作的个人咨询，他们还可以指导你获取更多关于高效写作方法和技巧的信息。
• ▪  Fi­nally, visit a writ­ing cen­ter if one is avail­able to you. Most col­leges and uni­ver­sit­ies, many high schools, and in­creas­ing num­bers of pub­lic lib­rar­ies and work­places spon­sor writ­ing cen­ters through which you can re­ceive a per­sonal con­sulta­tion about your writ­ing and that can dir­ect you to ad­di­tional in­form­a­tion about pro­duct­ive writ­ing prac­tices and tech­niques.

11.3.1  明确论点的实质内容

11.3.1  Identify the Sub­stance of Your Ar­gu­ment

你的论文结构与你的论证结构是否一致？

Does the struc­ture of your pa­per match the struc­ture of your ar­gu­ment?

1. 1.你提出的所有支持主要论点的理由是否都足以构成一个独立的章节？如果不是，你文章的组织要点可能与你的论证结构相冲突。
2. 1. Is each reason sup­port­ing your main claim the point of a sec­tion of its own? If not, the or­gan­iz­ing points of your pa­per may con­flict with the struc­ture of your ar­gu­ment.
3. 2.你是否在理由和证据之间取得了恰当的平衡？在每个部分，都要明确指出所有构成证据的内容，包括所有摘要、释义、引文、事实、数据、图表和表格。如果你很少用篇幅来展示和解释证据，你的论证可能就会显得单薄。如果你有很多证据但缺乏或根本没有理由，那么你的文章可能只是一堆数据的堆砌。
4. 2. Do you strike the right bal­ance between reas­ons and evid­ence? In each sec­tion, identify everything that counts as evid­ence, all the sum­mar­ies, para­phrases, quo­ta­tions, facts, fig­ures, graphs, tables. If you de­vote little space to present­ing and ex­plain­ing your evid­ence, your ar­gu­ment may be thin. If you have lots of evid­ence but few or no reas­ons, you may have just a data dump.

11.3.2  评估你的论证质量

11.3.2  Eval­u­ate the Qual­ity of Your Ar­gu­ment

什么因素可能导致读者对你的论点产生怀疑？

What might cause your read­ers to doubt your ar­gu­ment?

1. 1.你的证据可靠吗？在第七章中，我们提到证据应当准确、精确、充分、具有代表性、权威且清晰易懂（见7.5）。如果你已经接近最终稿，可能已经来不及寻找更多或更好的证据了。但你可以检查其他方面：
   • ▪ 将你的数据和引文与你的笔记进行核对。
   • ▪ 确保读者能够理解引文和数据与你的论点之间的联系。
   • ▪ 请确保没有跳过主要理由与其支持证据之间的中间子理由。
2. 1. Is your evid­ence re­li­able? In chapter 7, we said that evid­ence should be ac­cur­ate, pre­cise, suf­fi­cient and rep­res­ent­at­ive, au­thor­it­at­ive, and clear and un­der­stand­able (see 7.5). If you are close to a fi­nal draft, it may be too late to find more or bet­ter evid­ence. But you can check other mat­ters:
   • ▪  Check your data and quo­ta­tions against your notes.
   • ▪  Make sure your read­ers see how quo­ta­tions and data re­late to your claim.
   • ▪  Be sure you haven’t skipped in­ter­me­di­ate sub-reas­ons between a ma­jor reason and its sup­port­ing evid­ence.
3. 2.你是否对你的论点进行了适当的限定？你能否添加一些恰当的限定词，例如“可能”、 “大多数” 、 “经常”、 “或许”等等？
4. 2. Have you ap­pro­pri­ately qual­i­fied your ar­gu­ment? Can you drop in a few ap­pro­pri­ate hedges like prob­ably, most, of­ten, may, and so on?
5. 3.你是否已经阐述了所有应该阐述的论据？这个问题没有简单的检验方法。一旦你确定了论证的每个部分和子部分，就在空白处写下其最重要的未阐述论据。然后问问读者是否会接受它。如果不会，你就必须阐述并论证它。
6. 3. Have you ex­pressed all the war­rants you should? There is no easy test for this ques­tion. Once you identify each sec­tion and sub­sec­tion of your ar­gu­ment, write in the mar­gin its most im­port­ant un­stated war­rant. Then ask whether read­ers will ac­cept it. If not, you have to state and sup­port it.
7. 4.你的论文读起来像是与同行或同事的对话吗？他们提出了一些尖锐但友好的问题。如果它读起来像是一场竞赛……如果你还没有承认并回应竞争对手提出的不同观点或反对意见，请重新审视你的论证，想象一位同情但持怀疑态度的读者会问：“你为什么这么认为？你的观点真的有那么有力吗？你能解释一下这些证据与你的观点有何关联吗？但是……呢？”（回顾第九章。）然后，逐一回应那些你认为最重要的反对意见。
8. 4. Does your pa­per read like a con­ver­sa­tion with peers or col­leagues ask­ing hard but friendly ques­tions? If it reads like a con­test between com­pet­it­ors or if you haven’t ac­know­ledged and re­spon­ded to al­tern­at­ive views or ob­jec­tions, go back through your ar­gu­ment and ima­gine a sym­path­etic but skep­tical reader ask­ing, Why do you be­lieve that? Are you really mak­ing that strong a point? Could you ex­plain how this evid­ence relates to your point? But what about . . . ? (Re­view chapter 9.) Then ad­dress those ob­jec­tions that seem most im­port­ant.